The Influence of the International Community on Indigenous Rights in Australia

Home , Faith Bandler, History wars, Stronger Futures policy

Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies Department of International Relations and European Studies Major: International Relations

THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ON INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA

Masters thesis

Bc. Alena Verbová

Supervisor of Masters thesis: Hubert SMEKAL, Ph.D. UČO: 416575 Major: International Relations Imatriculation year: 2013 Brno 2015 Author: Bc. Alena Verbová

Title of Masters: The Influence of the International Community on Indigenous Rights in Australia

Title of Masters thesis: (in Czech) Vliv mezinárodní komunity na práva původních obyvatel v Austrálii

Specialization: International Relations

Supervisor: Hubert Smekal, Ph.D.

Year of defense: 2015

Annotation

The goal of this Masters thesis – The Influence of the International Community on Indigenous rights in Australia – is to examine the influence of the international environment on the Indigenous people of Australia. It scrutinizes the „Boomerang effect‟ theory, which argues that, when actors of one state cannot pursue their demands in their domestic government, they reach out to the international community, which can help them to meet their needs and apply pressure on the domestic government. The goal of this thesis is to investigate the validity of the Boomerang effect theory in the following three cases in Australia: the 1965 Freedom Ride; the Aboriginal Tent Embassy; and, the Northern Territory Intervention.

Anotace (in Czech)

Cílem této magisterské práce - Vliv mezinárodní komunity na práva původních obyvatel v Austrálii - je zkoumat vliv mezinárodního prostředí na práva původních obyvatel v Austrálii. Zabývá se teorií Bumerangového efektu, který argumentuje, že pokud obyvatelé ve svém státě nemohou dosáhnout svoje požadavky, obrací se na mezinárodní komunitu, která jim může pomoci dosáhnout jejich potřeby a aplikovat tlak na domácí vládu. Cílem této práce je zkoumat platnost teorie Boomerangového efektu na třech případech v Austrálii: the 1965 Freedom Ride, The Aboriginal Tent Embassy a intervence v Severním teritoriu v Austrálii.

Keywords

The Indigenous people of Australia and their rights, international influence, Boomerang effect.

Klíčová slova (in Czech)

Původní obyvatelé Austrálie a jejich práva, mezinárodní vliv, Bumerangový efekt.

Acknowledgement First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Hubert Smekal, Ph.D., for his valuable recommendations and advice. Also, I would like to thank Professor Ravi de Costa for his input in terms of the framework of my thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the participants who were willing to answer my questions, such as Gary Foley, Christopher Binge, Gary Binge, Ann Curthoys, Rex Wild, Alastair Nicholson and Julian Burnside. Many thanks go to my student advisor, Ruth Fluhr, for her help with academic writing in English. Moreover, a large debt of gratitude thanks to Aurin Green for his immense support, guidance, patience and insight. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family, friends and partner for their encouragement.

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Terminology ...... 2

2 Research design...... 5

3 History ...... 10

3.1 Pre-colonisation period ...... 10

3.2 Colonisation Period ...... 12

3.3 Post-colonisation Period ...... 16

4 Research cases ...... 29

4.1 The Freedom Ride ...... 29

4.2 The Aboriginal Tent Embassy ...... 39

4.3 The Northern Territory Intervention ...... 51

5 Conclusion ...... 61

6 Bibliography ...... 66

6.1 Primary sources: ...... 66

6.2 Secondary sources: ...... 69

7 Appendices: ...... 73

7.1 Thoughts from a phone interview with Gary Binge...... 73

7.2 Email responses ...... 74

7.3 Personal interview with Gary Foley ...... 81

7.4 Personal interview with Christopher Binge ...... 91

1. Introduction

This thesis examines the influence of the international community on the rights of the Indigenous people of Australia. Specifically, it focuses on the power of international influence relating to human rights on domestic issues of Australia, specifically those regarding Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. It scrutinizes the Boomerang theory, which argues that, when actors of one state cannot pursue their demands vis-a-vis their domestic government, they reach out to international bodies that can help them to meet their needs and put pressure on the domestic government. In order to scrutinize what constitutes the needs and rights that lead to the wellbeing of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, it is necessary to first scrutinize what the Indigenous people of Australia want. Both assimilation, on the one hand, and discrimination on the other, can lead to the suppression of indigenous rights. Thus the concept of integration, meaning to be included in society, while still keeping one‟s own indigenous rights to land, culture, self-determination and existence, can be a potentially promising concept for Indigenous wellbeing. Conflict between individuals and rights groups can arise over issues relating to indigenous rights. The paradox is that, with the human rights system introduced by the United Nations after the Second World War in 1945, mobilization of activism in support of indigenous rights was arising along with the liberal emphasis on individual rights. Thus the combination of the international human rights system, the civil rights movement around the world, specifically in the United States and South Africa, and the decolonization process triggered indigenous rights movements and in some cases, the formal acknowledgement of indigenous rights world-wide. The limitations that have slowed down the progress of the granting of indigenous rights are, among others, corporations demanding natural resources from land that belongs to indigenous peoples, as well as environmental and climate changes. However, cooperation between various governmental and non-governmental domestic, international bodies and Indigenous peoples of Australia does exist.

The main question of this thesis is: how was Boomerang effect used in activism for Indigenous rights in Australia, and what were the results of the campaign and of the Boomerang effect? The following three important cases will be examined, chosen based on the literature and expert opinions – Freedom Ride 1965, Aboriginal Tent Embassy 1972, and Northern Intervention 2007 – and in each case, indicator questions will be discussed. These three cases were chosen because

of the following reasons: the first case, Freedom Ride, is taken into account because it received international attention that, however, led to only a few changes; the second case, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, is examined because it attracted international attention, which put significant pressure on the Australian government, leading to significant changes within Australian legislation related to the indigenous rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; the third case, the Northern Territory Intervention, has been selected, because, although international pressure was brought to bear on the Australian government, no significant changes were made. Indicator questions will be applied to each case in order to answer the main question. Conclusions will be made according to the answers received to the indicator questions. The first chapter presents the research design. The second chapter scrutinizes the brief history of Australia. Australian history will be examined because of the parallel it provides that can be related to the present day situation and the opportunity to create a bigger picture for a better understanding of the Indigenous people of Australia. The third chapter analyzes the case of the Freedom Ride. The fourth chapter explores the case of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. The fifth chapter examines the case of the Northern Territory Intervention. After addressing the main question, conclusions will be made based on the indicator questions that enabled the scrutiny of these three cases.

1.1 Terminology ‘Aboriginal people is a general term for the Indigenous people of Australia. The term „Aborigines‟ was most commonly used in the 1960s, but is now less preferred‟ (Curthoys 2002: XVI).

‘Indigenous – the indigenous people of Australia and the Torres Strait Islands, increasingly, the preferred term by those whom it designates‟ (Curthoys 2002: XVI).

Boomerang effect can be defined as a situation in which domestic actors do not find support from a domestic government and they have to reach out to the international community for support. the Boomerang effect then appears when the international community exerts pressure on the domestic government to help domestic actors (Keck et. al. 1988: 12).

International response can be defined as the action of of international bodies outside Australia, transnational advocacy networks and activists for Indigenous rights and the wellbeing of Indigenous people in Australia.

Networks are forms of organization characterized by voluntary, reciprocal and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange. We call them advocacy networks because advocates plead the causes of others or defend a cause or proposition … Major actors in advocacy networks may include the following: 1) international and domestic nongovernmental research and advocacy organizations, 2) local social movements, 3) foundations, 4) the media, 5) churches, trade unions, consumer organizations, and intellectuals 6) parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations 7) parts of the executive and/or parliamentary branches of governments. Not all of these will be present in each advocacy network (Keck et al. 1988: 8-9).

Transnational advocacy networks can be specified as actors working between domestic and international environment based on shared principles and values (Keck et al. 1988: 16).

Transnationalism can be defined as „a set of broad norms or universal values or/and a powerful body to enforce such norms„ (Costa 2006: 4). „Transnational dimensions are sensitive to the complex interplays between different layers of the analysis: the local, the regional, the inter- regional, the national, the continental, and the global‟ (Curthoys et. al. 2005: 6).

Australian government response can be identified as a reaction to international pressure stemming from an impact from the international community and from domestic opposition.

Activism for the rights of Indigenous people in Australia can be defined as: advocacy for the Indigenous people of Australia, as well as the sympathizers among non-Indigenous people of Australia, trying to attain rights and wellbeing for the Indigenous people of Australia.

Wellbeing/rights of the Indigenous people of Australia can be defined according to the Dodson principles – „non-discrimination, difference or distinctive status, group rights and self- determinationfor the Indigenous people of Australia„ (Costa 2006: 137).

Non-discrimination means not depriving Indigenous peoples of the basic rights which belong to all peoples on this planet. Difference refers to the principle that we are disctinct peoples with distinct rights. It amounts to the ability to set up and control social and legal institutions and to have them operate according to our belief systems and needs, as we define them. The third

principle concerns the recognition of group or collective rights. The most significant and unrecognized rights for which Indigenous Peoples are seeking recognition concerns our rights as peoples ... it could be said that ... the failure to respect our integrity, and the insistence in speaking for us, defines our needs and controls our lives. Self-determination is the river in which all other rights swim (Costa 2006: 137).

Situation can be specified as a position related to the Indigenous people of Australia.

New situation can be defined as a position related to the Indigenous people of Australia after the Australian government response.

2 Research design

The thesis is based on the theory of transnationalism, which can be defined as „a set of broad norms or universal values or/and a body to enforce such norms„ (Costa 2006: 4). „Transnational dimensions are sensitive to the complex interplays between different layers of the analysis: the local, the regional, the inter-regional, the national, the continental, and the global‟ (Curthoys et al. 2005: 6). Transnationalism thus accounts for the significance of the state, yet pays attention to the international environment as well (Costa 2006: 2). Costa states that „there has been no dedicated study of the transnational character of the indigenous movement in Australia, its emergence and rationale, or its methods and achievements‟ (2006: 11). Therefore, aware of that fact that only a few scholars have been examining the transnational character as it relates to the Indigenous people of Australia, this thesis will examine this phenomenon in more detail. Before British settlement in 1788, transnational connections between the Indigenous people of Australia and people outside Australia can be traced. The former have met a lot of different cultures thanks to their customs and trade that served not only an economic purpose but social aspects as well. Different angles will be taken into account when examining transnationalism as it relates to the Indigenous Australian people, such as „humanitarianism, evangelical Christianity, communism or feminism‟ (Costa 2006: 5).

The framework of this thesis is structured on the basis of the Boomerang effect theory.

When channels between the state and its domestic actors are blocked, the boomerang pattern of influence characteristic of transnational networks may occur: domestic actors bypass their state and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside (Keck et al. 1988: 12).

Transnationalism can serve as a framework for the Boomerang effect theory because the latter appears at the regional and state level, as well as on the international level. This theory will be examined in this thesis in the context of the synergistic effect produced by the following variables: the situation; activism for the rights of Indigenous people in Australia; the Australian government response to that activism; the international response; the Australian government‟s response to international pressure; and the resulting changed situation.

Picture 1: Sequence of patterns of Boomerang effect:

Transnational advocacy networks can work based on socialization. Socialization can be characterized as the mechanism by which international law is applied by a domestic government, such that that state becomes a new member of the society in which these norms are already implemented. Persuasion may be based not only on an argument for establishing a good reputation, but also on bringing sanctions and pressure, embarrassment and/or by cancelling support for arms supplies, or the free trade agreement with the country under pressure. Categorization of the function of transnational advocacy networks include: information politics whereby information is used in such a way as to ensure that the usage of that information has the greatest effect; symbolic politics, which provides the actors with an understanding of the situation based on symbols and stories; accountability politics, based on pressure to follow the promises and proclamation that the government has made (Keck et al. 1988: 16). 6

Because this thesis scrutinizes rights of the Indigenous people of Australia from a transnational perspective, rights, related to international treaties, declarations and Indigenous people, are presented below as a part of the human rights system introduced by the United Nations. The concept of self-determination has been present since the United Nations Charter came into effect. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was declared in 1948 by the United Nations (The United Nations). The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was signed in 1948 and ratified by Australia in 1949 (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). The Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, created by the International Labour Organization in 1957 (No. 107), became the first international norm related to the subject of indigenous populations (Costa 2006: 107). It stresses the dynamic integration of Aborigines into society. This convention was criticized by many indigenous groups, as it was understood by many to contain assimilation tendencies (The University of British Columbia, 2009). Therefore, in 1989, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169) was created by the International Labour Organization to protect Indigenous rights, emphasizing the self-identity of the Indigenous people of Australia (Costa 2006: 134). The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was presented in 1965, signed by Australia in 1966 and ratified in 1975 (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was presented in 1966 (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). Australia ratified this covenant in 1980, with, however, several reservations; this resulted in their not becoming part of Australian law (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was presented in 1966. Australia ratified this covenant in 1975 ((United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). However, it still does not constitute part of Australian domestic law. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People was declared within the United Nations in 2007, the drafting of which, Mick Dodson, creator of the Dodson principles (Costa 2006: 137; Australian Legal Information Institute), was involved. The Dodson principles can be viewed as principles that are relevant in order to discover the specific needs and wants of the Indigenous people of Australia. Mick Dodson was the first indigenous person of Australia to complete his studies in law. The latter declaration was approved by Australia in 2009, with, however, no legal action on the part of the government to guarantee the implementation of the Convention (Australian Human Rights Commission). Knowledge of these

international treaties and declarations relating to the rights of Indigenous people is necessary in order to scrutinize the main research question of this thesis.

The main research question that will be examined is: How was the Boomerang effect used in activism for the rights of Indigenous people in Australia, and what were the results? Indicator questions – that is, questions that have the function of indicators to help in answering the main research question – will be implemented in order to trace vital information. The indicator questions are as follows:

1) How was the Boomerang effect used in activism for indigenous rights in Australia in the Freedom Ride case, and what were the results?

2) How was the Boomerang effect used in activism for indigenous rights in Australia in Aboriginal Tent Embassy case and what were the results?

3) How was the Boomerang effect used in activism for indigenous rights in Australia in Northern Territory case and what were the results?

This thesis is aware of many other activist protests in pursuit of rights for the Indigenous people of Australia. Some of them are mentioned in this thesis. However, these three cases have been chosen because of the understanding of the Boomerang effect theory, based on the argument that, when domestic opposition does not succeed in the pursuit of Indigenous rights, international actors try to be reached in search of support that will put international pressure on the domestic government. However, this thesis acknowledges the fact that success can be achieved, even as a result of domestic activism alone, and without international support. However, this thesis examines the Boomerang theory with the acknowledgement of when these conditions do not apply – that is, when domestic action has not been successful. The aim of this thesis is to examine the Boomerang effect theory, the success of the theory, conditions under which this theory works and the results of the findings. The thesis provides, in conclusion, recommendations as to how the Boomerang effect can, based on the examination of past cases, be better used in the future. Transnational advocacy networks are relevant to help in the process of domestic change as they remind a violating state of international norms, laws, prestige and sanctions. They also empower domestically oppressed groups and their rights to be approved, heard and protected, and also bring pressure on a violating state to change its policy. 8

The thesis thus focuses not only on materialistic theories of, for instance, economic sanctions or cancelled military supplies, nut also maintains relationships with idealistic theories of norms, ideas, human rights and laws. Ideas can be defined as mental promises (Risse et al. 2004: 5); can be identified as rules making demands on other human beings as well, as they help to clarify the character and identity of the actors and where they belong in society in, for instance, liberal democracies. They make actors aware of the facts, of how other actors would like to perceive them, or of how the actors themselves like to be perceived (Risse et al. 2004: 8). „Norms influence political change through a socialization process that combines instrumental interests (economic and military aid, trade), pressures, argumentation (shame and self-entrapment), persuasion, institutionalization and habitualization‟ (Risse et al. 2004: 37). Thus, states that are affected by international laws can change their policy based on three assumptions relating to motives of the state that lead to changes in government policy, as follows: the first assumption is that the state would like to change its identity based on moral principles; the second assumption appears when the state is willing to change its behavior based on a bargaining principle where it gets something in return; the third assumption is based on the pressure the state is under to cause it to change its policy. The limits of the thesis lie in its major focus being on the international, rather than the domestic, perspective. Therefore, the domestic legislation is not examined in great detail. However, the situation of the domestic activist for the rights of Indigenous people of Australia trying to reach international community in order to make domestic change is examined. The benefits of the thesis lie in aligning the Boomerang theory with Australian cases of governmental treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia; thus, it offers a new perspective on the system of international human rights, in that the relation of the domestic reaction to the binding of human rights to international treaties is examined.

3 History

3.1 Pre-colonisation period This chapter is going to scrutinize the Indigenous people of Australia prior to the colonization period from an anthropological and historical point of view. Firstly, an examination of the way of life of the Indigenous people of Australia is presented. Secondly, an examination follows of the international connections that existed with the Indigenous people of Australia, and the ways in which these affected their lives. This chapter argues that international influence had an impact on the lives of the Indigenous people of Australia before the pre-colonisation period and, consequently, their way of life was connected to the nomadic way of life. That understanding of their way of life can be useful for understanding the needs of the Indigenous people of Australia and the current thinking regarding their rights – specifically, their land and civil rights.

Prior to colonization, the Australian population was estimated to at around 300,000 (Blainey 1982: 113). A higher standard of living could be expected amongst a population that is low because of the greater accessibility and availability of natural resources. Therefore, the Indigenous people of Australia, being aware of this knowledge, had a lot of customs that allowed them to keep the population at a minimum, such as „abortions, warfare, the killing of unwanted babies, and the inability to care for the old‟ (Blainey 1982: 113). No alcohol production was carried out in the culture of the Indigenous people of Australia. They were not aware of the process of fermentation that would allow them to produce alcohol. They also preferred to keep as few possessions with them while moving from one place to another (Blainey 1982: 173-174). Therefore, no conservation of things that they would eat or drink was necessary (Blainey 1982: 197). The unknown phenomenon of alcohol among the Indigenous people of Australia until colonization indicates the damage that alcohol, brought by the Europeans, subsequently did to the Indigenous culture (Blainey 1982: 173-174). The damage that alcohol has done to the Indigenous people of Australia has caused serious problems, for instance, in the case of the Northern Territory Intervention, examined in this thesis. The function of trade among the Indigenous people of Australia was both economic and social. It was practiced for thousands of years (Blainey 1982: 211). The natural Australian environment provided the Indigenous people of Australia with plenty of food. Therefore, they did not have to keep food and drinks with them,

as they would find it easily while they were moving from one place to another. As a result, they had higher standards of nutrition and living in general than the average European in the 18th and 19th century (Blainey 1982: 222-223).

If we specify the main ingredients of a good standard of living as food, health, shelter, and warmth, the average Indigenous peoples of Australia were probably as well off as the average European in 1800 (Blainey 1982: 225).

The nomadic lifestyle of the Indigenous people of Australia, who were hunter-gatherers, was crucial and fundamental in order for them to gain the resources that were needed. „It also ensured that people maintained their links with foundational stories as they travelled along Dreaming paths‟ (Costa 2006: 21). Passing the territorial borders of the Indigenous people of Australia required special customs (Costa 2006: 23). Hence, an understanding of the way of life of the Indigenous peoples of Australia can be useful for the comprehension of their demands for land and civil rights. Their lives were bound to be affected by connection with other international cultures.

According to research conducted in 1981, evidence informs us that aboriginal sites can be at least 40,000 years old. However, a lot of scholars suggest that the idea of a „first people‟ coming to Australia living here could be even longer, up to 65 000 years (Blainey 1982: 6). During the migration of homo sapiens between 65 000 to 40 000 years ago, Asia was much closer to Australia, even though there was still an open sea between those continents. In that period, some of the Asian islands, such as Java or Bali, were incorporated within the Asian continent (Blainey 1982: 15) Evidence suggest a hypothesis of „two waves of original migrants corresponding to the most favorable geological and sea-level situations before 45,000 years ago and between 4000 and 3500 years ago‟ (Costa 2006: 32). However, it is suggested among many anthropologists that a movement of South-east Asian people to Australia was taking place during that whole period. According to some anthropologists, there were important international connections between the Indigenous people of Australia and Macassans, people coming from the Indonesian Archipelago, that made an impact on the culture of the Indigenous people of Australia (Costa 2006: 33-37). One of their first contacts with people outside of Australia can be found with „the Macassans from the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia), who for hundreds of years visited northern Australia‟ (Curthoys et al. 2005: 201). According to Professor John Mulvaney, the first people 11

coming to Australia came from New Guinea and Asia, specifically from countries such China and Taiwan, walking across the Phillippines and Indonesia (Blainey 1982: 17). Migration most likely took place in a way that was not done in an organized precise way. A migration through the islands of Indonesia and New Guinea towards Australia took place at a slow pace. The Indigenous people of Australia probably remained in a desert in a rainy season; however they were most likely not living there for any length of time at the time of migration. Migration slowly developed into a group of tribes living in a fragmented fashion across the whole continent. Therefore, languages became more differentiated among the tribes and more than 300 languages existed at that time, and even more dialects (Blainey 1982: 30-31). According to research that scrutinized the genes existing between the Indigenous people of Australia and potential forebears from different countries, no biological connection could be found. Hence, that leads to the conclusion that the Indigenous people of Australia have been living in Australia for such a long time that their background cannot be traced from genetic scrutinization (Blainey 1982: 48). The influence of the ancestors of Aborigines can be traced through the art and cultural customs that might be related to Asian culture. During the period of migration, the level of the sea was low. Therefore, a land connection between the Australian and Asian continents could be feasible. Therefore, the increasing level of the sea was an important part of Australian history affecting the migration process to the point of increasing the isolation of the Australia from the rest of the world (Blainey 1982: 85). Because Indigenous peoples of Australia were skilled in working on boats, the question being asked is how they could cover a distance so vast as that from Australia to China. Other contacts that might have influenced the aboriginal people came, before British colonization, from „the Dutch, Portuguese, French and Chinese‟ (Curthoys et al. 2005: 202). After colonization took place in Australia, in 1788, ongoing connections between the Indigenous people of Australia and other countries took place.

3.2 Colonisation Period This chapter is going to briefly scrutinize the Indigenous peoples of Australia, during colonization period, from an historical point of view. Firstly, an examination of the transnational approach of humanitarianism and evangelical Christianity is presented. Secondly, the focus is going to be directed towards notions of racial superiority. Thirdly, an examination of the doctrine 12

of discovery is introduced. This chapter provides an explanation as to why the Indigenous people of Australia have been treated in a way that has resulted in their indigenous rights being curtailed and, in many cases, suppressed.

The transnational approach of humanitarianism had, as an ethical underpinning, the notion of non-slavery (Costa 2006: 40-41). The 1815 Final Act of the Congress of Vienna reflected the agitation of abolitionists and included a condemnation of the slave trade (Costa 2006: 64). If the concept of slavery is understood as people being treated as property that can be bought and sold, it can be assumed that the Indigenous people of Australia were not slaves. However, they were treated in a way that shows the elements of forced power on them, diminishing their freedom. Hence, for instance, they were forced to sign treaties, to be involved in un-free labour and they were paid a bare minimum wage. Nonetheless, humanitarianism saw colonization as an inescapable process. The consequences of the European invasion of Australia, which continued during the subsequent colonization, include vigilance and the spread or diseases; thus, the Indigenous people of Australia were scattered in small groups of people, living in reserves that were under the control of missionaries. The transnational approach of evangelical Christianity resulted in a lot of missions trying to diminish the traditional way of living of the Indigenous people of Australia, which reinforced the former‟s moral standards of work, education and religion. „Missions in Australia were part of a globally networked moral imperialism‟ (Costa 2006: 44-45). Thus, even though some missions had good intentions related to the Indigenous people of Australia, the concept of superiority prevailed at that period.

The concept of racial superiority was scrutinized at that time. The white British and the people in the United States presumed, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, that African-Americans and the Indigenous peoples of Australia were two kinds of a secondary black race. That concept can provide an explanation as to why the latter were treated in a way that has diminished their rights. However, not everyone agrees with this concept. Ethnologist James Cowles Pritchard became an inspiration for minorities because of his thoughts that were against notions surrounding slavery and the inequality of the Indigenous race. He played a significant role, in the 19th century, among scholars (Smithers 2008: 316). „He insisted that despite physical differences, the suggestion that the Negro and Australian are not our fellow-creatures and of one family with ourselves was preposterous. Pritchard argued that the physical features of the Negro and the first

Australians were the product of human adaptations to external environmental factors (Smithers 2008: 317). „To Pritchard, this meant that all human races, including the Negro and the Australian, resulted from a single Divine creation‟ (Smithers 2008: 318); thus, all living human beings were supposed to be equal according to him. He supported abolitionism and contributed to discussions of justice for the Indigenous people of Australia. Several activists, such as Aboriginal leader, Walter George Arthur or African-American activist, Frederick Douglass thought that „whiteness should not be seen as equivalent‟ to civilization (Smithers 2008: 332). However, colonization was associated with the international law that was still relying on the concept of racial superiority.

„The majority of the non-European sphere was colonized under an international law that is known as the Doctrine of Discovery‟ (Miller 2012: 847). According to this law, European colonizers possessed exclusive rights over indigenous peoples, their land and materials to gain control over new land without agreement or acknowledgement of indigenous people. „These claims were justified by racial, ethnocentric, and religious ideas of the alleged superiority of European Christians‟ (Miller 2012: 847). This doctrine was practiced specifically by Portugal, Spain and England. The settler nations, including „Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and the United States‟ (Miller 2012: 847) have been, to varying degrees, using this doctrine until relatively recently to limit indigenous sovereign self-determination rights over land. „The Doctrine of Discovery is well defined in the very influential 1823 United States Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. M‟Intosh‟ (Miller 2012: 850). „In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Discovery was an established legal principle of European and American colonial law. Johnson has been cited and relied on by Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian courts‟ (Miller 2012: 850). The Court translated the case of European colonizers who occupied new lands into their justification as the unquestionable owners of „sovereign and property rights in the lands‟ (Miller 2012: 850) without the agreement of indigenous people who were already living on the land for thousand years before the arrival of Europeans. Among the common elements that could be traced among European practices relating to the doctrine of discovery are the following principles according to Miller: the initial discovery allowed Europeans to take up land and to be awarded political rights over the discovery of new land; the principle of physical occupancy – actual occupancy and current ownership – put the first

principle into practice by „preemption/European title by a European country which that discovered a new land gained the property right of preemption‟ (Miller 2012: 853); using the principle of first discovery, the native title – or indigenous peoples‟ rights to their ancestral land – vanished. Indigenous peoples could still keep the rights, as long as they did not choose to sell the land, which could only be bought by the European government possessing the preemption title; contiguity – the constraining of Indigenous sovereign and trade rights. This principle gave Europeans rights over a great amount of land. This became the principle when two discovering lands were close to each other; for example, Terra Nullius - meaning „empty land‟. As long as the newly discovered land was empty or as long as the new land was not governed in a European way, it provided justification for the application of the doctrine of discovery; Christianity and the notion of ‘civilization’ allowed for the establishing of dominance and supremacy of European people over other civilizations, and conquest resulted in the gaining of property and sovereignty rights by winning wars (Miller 2012: 852).

In Australia, Britain had no real rivals to claim the continent. That might be one reason why England never signed treaties or agreements with Indigenous peoples of Australia about land, sovereignty, or commercial issues (Miller 2012: 876).

Land rights were only acknowledged finally in the Mabo case in 1992; in this ruling, native title to land was acknowledged and legitimized in the Torres Strait Island and became part of Australian legislation in Native Title in 1993, thus annulling the doctrine of discovery. Beforehand, the Australian land was terra nullius for Europeans (Miller 2012: 887). Sovereign rights belonging to Aborigines are still not acknowledged by the Australian government (Miller 2012: 895). The contiguity principle was used by England and English settlers. In the first instance, Captain James Cook came to Botany Bay in 1770 and declared the east coast to be owned by England. Later on, the First Fleet came to the north of Botany Bay in 1788 with Arthur Phillip. Thus, England could proclaim the whole east coast of Australia as belonging to England based on the principle of contiguity (Miller 2012: 899). The Torres Strait became part of New South Wales in 1824 and, in 1827, England claimed the whole continent of Australia (Miller 2012: 900). The concept of „doctrine of discovery‟ was examined here as it provided the platform that had significant consequences for other international and domestic treaties relating to Indigenous rights after the colonization period.

3.3 Post-colonisation Period This chapter scrutinizes, in nine parts, the activism during the post-colonization period of the Indigenous people of Australia and their sympathizers: firstly, it examines the effect of imperial policy on Australian policy; secondly, the Marcus Garvey movement is scrutinized; thirdly, an examination follows of activists addressing their indigenous rights on a domestic scale in the early 1920s; fourthly, an examination of Indigenous rights activists in the 1920s on both a domestic and international scale is presented; fifthly, the introduction of the transnational approach of communism is presented; sixthly, the transnational approach of feminism is mentioned; following this, the development of indigenous rights on an international scale is examined; next, the activism around Indigenous rights after the Second World War is investigated; and, lastly, evidence of the susceptibility of the Australian government to international influence on changes relating to Indigenous rights is provided. This chapter argues that the Australian government is susceptible to the opinion of the international community, in such a way as to make possible, governmental changes regarding Indigenous rights. However, more governmental changes need to be accomplished in order to witness the wellbeing of the Indigenous peoples of Australia on a large scale.

The concept of racial superiority was well evidenced in the twentieth century. Marilyn Lake noticed the discourse of racial distinctiveness in the beginning of the twentieth century and stressed “W. E. B. Du Bois‟s 1910 recognition of the „new religion‟ of whiteness” (Curthoys et al. 2005: 19). That discourse led to the development of the „White Australia Policy‟ (Curthoys et al. 2005: 19), established in 1901 as a part of immigration policy in Australia. The leader of the period who was responsible for this measure was Alfred Deakin, and a key feature of this policy were literacy tests, presented to establish whether the candidate knew any European language – a requirement in order to migrate to Australia. The imperial influence between England and Australia was believed to have a significant impact, even in the 20th century. However, after the end of the First World War, a platform was created for change as the Superpowers were weakened. Consequently, many discriminated groups around the world could raise their voices. The activism of the Indigenous people of Australia relating to its connection with the international community can thus be traced at the beginning of the twentieth century and can be

seen to provide a platform for the later activism for Indigenous rights in the three cases that are examined in this thesis.

After the end of the First World War, the activism of oppressed groups increased. The impact of „Marcus Garvey‟s Black Nationalist movement on the mobilization for Aboriginal self- determination in the 1920s‟ (Curthoys et al. 2005: 199) was influential on the beginning of the Aboriginal-American activism and established a connection with the international indigenous activist movement.

Marcus Garvey, the leader of the Universal Negro Improvement Association formed first in Jamaica in 1916 in the United States, becoming what is recognized today as the biggest black political movement ever assembled in the United States (Curthoys et al. 2005: 199).

Marcus Garvey created an organization network called UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association), which built connections with the Australian organizations fighting for Indigenous people‟s rights in Australia – the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA (Maynard 2007: 25). ‟At the height of its power in the mid1920s the UNIA had successfully established chapters in 41 countries, including branch number 646 in Australia‟ (Maynard 2007: 31). The rapid diminution of the organization took place in 1924. However, the legacy of the organization left such a huge impact; „it remains the largest organized mass-based movement of Black People– and by far the most internationalist one – to ever be established in the US‟ (Maynard 2007: 35). The connection between African-American people, black power and its philosophy shaped the activism of the Indigenous people of Australia, scrutinized later in this thesis specifically in the cases of the Freedom Ride and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

There is evidence of the Indigenous peoples of Australia and activists who sent letters to the English ruler in order to change the conditions for the Indigenous people of Australia. Among organizations involved in these activities was the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA), which sent a letter to the former English ruler, George V, in the 1920s. „In 1926, an Aboriginal woman named Jane Duren sent a letter to the King‟ (Costa 2006: 47-48), asking for recognition of lands that belonged to Aborigines. Another Aboriginal activist, Burraga, asked the King for the rehabilitation of Indigenous rights that were acknowledged during the period of Queen Victoria in 1933. Another activist, William Cooper, a member of the Australian

Aborigines League (AAL), made a presumption that the English ruler was responsible for the conditions that Aborigines faced and therefore, sent several petitions in 1930s to the Australian government to send it to the English monarch (Costa 2006: 47-48). However, parliament decided not to forward the request to the queen of England because it deemed that the English ruler had no such responsibility to pass a law that would affect the Australian government (Costa 2006: 47-48). Thus, these domestic activists did not bring any significant benefits. Therefore, activists trying to find domestic support related to Indigenous rights were not successful, in this period, on any significant level. No pressure was put on the Australian government that could force it to make some legislative or constitutional changes. International influence, especially after the establishment of the United Nations and its human rights system and policy around the world has made several impacts, which are scrutinized below.

International influence on the Indigenous people of Australia, as well as other minorities, was manifested into the Coloured Progressive Association (CPA) in 1903. The Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA) was established in 1920 (Maynard 2007: 19). Fred Maynard, John Maynard‟s grandfather, was an Aboriginal activist and founder of AAPA, inspired by the Coloured Progressive Association, which was made up of mainly „seaman of African and Caribbean origin‟ (Costa 2006: 55). „AAPA was profoundly shaped by Marcus Garvey‟s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA)‟ (Costa 2006: 55). According to the author, activists supporting the Indigenous peoples of Australia were inspired by thoughts and ideas abroad, but transformed them to suit the environment that they inhabited – Australia. „The AAPA‟s two main goals were to abolish the practice of child removal and to secure, for Aboriginal families, enough land to enable them to become self-sufficient‟ (Costa 2006: 55). The Stolen Generation, a term coined following the removal of children from Indigenous peoples of Australia to be relocated with white families, was carried out in order to effect white assimilation; this took place between approximately 1909 and 1970 in Australia (Clark 2014: 96). The Stolen Generation and its practices of removing children to white institutions can be related to an act of genocide affecting a number of children estimated at between 20,000 and 50,000 children (Levi 2007: 130). „As early as 1937, anthropologists such as WEH Stanner advocated segregated places so that indigenous cultures could be maintained‟ (Costa 2006: 93- 94). Jack Johnson, the Afro-American boxer, was one of the first famous people and successful

boxer who was in contact with AAPA members and who wanted to learn more about the life of the Indigenous people of Australia. He demanded that everyone treat him with respect, which, at that time, was expected mostly from others towards white people. Thus, the racial discrimination and indications of superiority by white man and the theory of social Darwinism were being wiped out a bit by this boxer. The connections of the Indigenous people of Australia and other minorities were enhanced and more information was traded through the cooperation of wharf labourers and seaman overseas. Thus, many activists involved in spreading and delivering information around the world were seaman. That cooperation flourished before, during and after the wars. The non-indigenous supporters of the AAPA included McKenzie Hatton and John Moloney (Maynard 2007: 39). Among the tactics of the activists for the rights of the Indigenous people of Australia to raise their voice to the broader public the embarrassment of the Australian government. Therefore, this tactic of embarrassment helped the organization of the AAPA, and other Aboriginal activists from different Australian organizations working for the Indigenous people of Australia to be on „the front-page of the news‟ (Maynard 2007: 53). Thus, these international influences on the activism of the Indigenous people of Australia before 1945 were inconceivable for a lot of scholars (Curthoys et al. 2005: 195). Fred Maynard cooperated with „Marcus Garvey‟s Universal Negro Improvement Association‟ (Clark 2014: 96). The early indications of activism on the part of the Indigenous peoples of Australia can be traced to the establishment of the Aboriginal Progressive Association in „the early 1920s and the Australian Aboriginal League in the 1930s‟ (Clark 2014: 96). Through Fred Maynard‟s organization, APAA, the connection between the activism of American-African and the Indigenous peoples of Australian was built in the early 1920s, and provided a platform for other activism for indigenous rights, which will be examined later in this thesis. International connections helped the AAPA in their activism relating to Indigenous rights issues. Its members grew across New South Wales. It helped to establish several avenues of social, political and economic support for the Indigenous people of Australia, such as housing. However, because of government pressure and intrigues relating to members of AAPA on matters such as the removal of Australian Indigenous children led to the cessation of the organization in 1927. At that time, an additional two transnational approaches related to Indigenous rights were introduced – namely communism and feminism.

The Communist Party of Australia was created in 1920 and was connected to „the Communist International Comintern‟ (Costa 2006: 51). Comintern was against the superiority of one race over another (Costa 2006: 51). The feeling of racial dominance can be traced from the period of colonialism, which became focused on capitalistic growth (Costa 2006: 51). Connections between Aborigines and unions such as the North Australian Workers Union (NAWU) resulted in effective collaboration towards the same goal of equal salaries. Their cooperation proceeded in front of the United Nations initiative that was triggered to „examine Australia‟s observance of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights‟ (Costa 2006: 55). Therefore, while, on the one hand, the communist party and the unions were involved in support of Indigenous rights, on the other, some indigenous organizations disregarded the help offered by communist organizations „such as the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders‟, as they thought that the activism of the latter related to their ideological intention, rather than genuine help (National Museum Australia 2007: 14).

The second transnational approach related to Indigenous rights has been the feminist stance. „Between 8000 and 10,000 women affiliated to an organization called the British Commonwealth League (BCL), from 1925, a sub-group of the International Women‟s Suffrage Alliance‟ (Costa 2006: 57). There is no approved information that would clearly suggest how feminists contribute to the support of Indigenous rights. Their way of thinking relating to gender equality make them at least implicitly in agreement with indigenous women (Costa 2006: 59-61). Jessie Street, a feminist, was one of the activists working for the Indigenous people of Australia who also took a stand on the international horizon based on her experience and international contacts (Chesterman 2005: 37-38). Thus, even though there is no evidence of significant feminist support for Indigenous rights in Australia, several feminist and aboriginal activists were involved in helping bring justice to the Indigenous women of Australia. Moreover, during this period, significant international treaties and declarations were presented.

Thus, evidence of the development of international law relating to indigenous peoples can be found after the First World War; this development progressed further after the Second World War. The structure of the League of Nations evolved within the context of the protection of minority peoples that was exposed directly within Europe and indirectly via mandate. The European powers did not want to be faced by situations that would create self-determination,

and, consequently, nations. The Covenant of the League of Nation made statements demanding the equality of minority peoples around the world. These statements were not accepted by Australia, New Zealand and the United States, countries in which the rights of minorities were limited (Costa 2006: 66-68). „The 1926 Slavery convention and the ILO‟, with its numerous conventions on the rights of indigenous labourers, were also significant developments of important organizations with treaties regarding indigenous rights as a part of collective rights (Costa 2006: 66-68).

Only two states then opposed explicitly the recognition of the right to self-determination: the United States and Australia. Australia proposed to withdraw the concept of self-determination and to replace it by self-management or self-empowerment, terms with no existing meaning in international law (Costa 2006: 162).

Costa (2006: 165) states that „self-determination as the centre-piece of indigenous policy has to a large extent been a statement of intention rather than of action. Real self-determination has never been tried‟ and that „self-determination didn‟t become positive law until the United Nations Charter‟ (Costa 2006: 138). A critical moment within the context of international legal protection of indigenous people was the creation of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention 107 by the International Labour Organization; in 1957, this was one of the first international instruments to protect indigenous people (Costa 2006: 71-72). In 1989, this was then updated to the Indigenous Tribal Populations Conventions 169 (Costa 2006: 71-72). Another key moment within international law for the Indigenous people of Australia was Australia‟s signature to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination in 1966 (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). This did not change anything immediately, but its implementation made a difference in that it led to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 and the Native Title Act in 1993 (Costa 2006: 84). The Australian government hesitated over „Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1961, signed in 1966‟ (Costa 2006: 85), as they wondered if indigenous people could be considered „because they were too primitive‟ (Costa 2006: 85). However, the discourse changed after the adoption of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). Australia remains one of the last democracies in the world not to have implemented ICCPR into Australian legislation. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was signed in 1972 and

ratified in 1975 by the Australian government (Costa 2006: 85). The „United Nations ECOSOC resolution 1589 in 1971 was the beginning of the United Nations charter system‟s formal interest in indigenous peoples‟; it „authorized the Sub-Commission to take action to investigate discrimination against indigenous peoples worldwide by appointing a Special Rapporteur Cobo to prepare a comprehensive report‟ (Costa 2006: 127). The United Nations started examining a „differentiated conception of equality‟ (Costa 2006: 129),and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples and Working Group on Indigenous Populations became the platform for raising issues of the Indigenous peoples of Australia (Costa 2006: ix). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a central device for obtaining justice for indigenous peoples (Gooda 2011: 141). The Dodson principles include: „Firstly, non-discrimination. Secondly, difference or distinctive status. Thirdly, group rights. Finally, self-determination‟ (Costa 2006: 137). Hence, during the growth in activism period after the Second World War, international treaties, organizations and declarations have been serving as the platform for the Indigenous peoples of Australia and their sympathizers in their search for support and help.

Although there were connections between minority groups before the 1950s, such as via the AAPA organization, and inspired by Marcus Garvey, more Aboriginal activism was built upon the establishment of the international human rights system of the United Nations in the 1950s and more so after the 1960s, with the process of decolonization. Charles Duguid belonged to one of the non-indigenous support groups for Indigenous rights in Australia, and argued that the United Nations should be the institution for receiving complaints and criticizing anyone who does not follow human rights and speak up for other oppressed groups. „Probably the first active group was the Democratic Rights Council, established in Melbourne in 1950. This led to an Australian People‟s Assembly for Human Rights‟ (Costa 2006: 78). The CAR (Council for Aboriginal Rights) organization used international legislation as a basis for reference of the treatment, by the Australian government, of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. „The CAR quickly became the hub of an informal network connecting individuals and organizations‟ (Costa 2006: 78). Because of CAR‟s association with communism, another institution – the Australian Aboriginal Fellowship – was established by Pearl Gibbs and Faith Bandler in 1956. It not only emphasized the cooperation of black power, but also the cooperation of other races, including white people (Costa 2006: 76-79). Charles Perkins became one of the first Aboriginal activists to

use the transnational process for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Australia; this was critical in organizing a social movement inspired by the civil rights movement in the United States – the Freedom Ride, which led partially to the 1967. Referendum Margaret Tucker was another activist who gained activist experience while traveling abroad for „an annual conference of the Moral Rearmament movement in the (US) Great Lakes area‟, and was inspired by women talking about different races (Costa 2006: 76). Other minorities also built contacts with the Indigenous people of Australia on their travel to Australia, such as the musician, „Paul Robeson, the supporter for indigenous rights, Doug Nicholls,and the musicians, Tod Duncan, Harry Belafonte, William Warfield and Winifred Atwell‟ (Costa 2006: 77). Some people in Australia were still concerned about the issue of biological equality despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary (Costa 2006: 81). Therefore, activists for the Indigenous people of Australia and were moving, on many occasions, to the international forum, „physically or ideologically‟ (Costa 2006: 1), in order to raise awareness of the Indigenous peoples of Australia and „indigenous justice and recognition‟ (Costa 2006: 1). In 1982, the Commonwealth Games, in which protests addressing the issues of the Indigenous people of Australia took place, highlighting international attention. The „State Librarian, Janette Wright, said that after Indigenous activists threatened to interrupt the Commonwealth Games, Queensland‟s then Premier, Joh Bjelke-Peterson, declared a „State of Emergency‟ and proclaimed street marches to be illegal‟ (State Library of Queensland 2014). „In January 1978 Indigenous peoples of Australia activists Paul Coe and Cecil Patten, together with white lawyer Bruce Miles‟ (Costa 2006: 1) land out in a tiny boat from the English land, paddled a few kilometres away from the English shores and then came back to set up a flag back in English land. In 1988, same event took place by Aboriginal activist „Henry Penrith – Burnum Burnum„ (Costa 2006: 1) who raised more media and public attention than previous activists (Costa 2006: 1). In 1988, on Australian Bicentenary, „more than 40,000 people across the country staged what was the largest march in Sydney since the Vietnam moratorium‟ (Museum Victoria). It attracted domestic as well as international attention to the issue of the Indigenous people of Australia. These protest events indicate a symbolism to commemorate the event when the English people colonized Australia and ignored rights of Indigenous people of Australia (Costa 2006: 1). The process of activism and self-determination for the Indigenous people of Australia was triggered by the shift accompanying the decolonization process, as well as by the civil rights movement in support of minorities in the United States (Costa 2006: 15 ). More domestic actors such as Doug

Nicholls and other Indigenous Australians started to contact international actors, such as the United Nations, about the mistreatment, from the 1960s, of the Indigenous peoples of Australia by the Australian government. „In April in 1963, the Foreign Affairs Committee resolved to set up a sub-committee to study the Aboriginal question and its possible impact on overseas opinion about Australia‟ (Costa 2006: 86). In 1963, activists showed evidence of discrimination, based on Article 127 of the Constitution (Costa 2006: 87). The dynamism of transnationalism was thus established and moved by the connection between minority activists who supported and inspired others to be active relating to this issue. Mboya, minister for justice in Kenya, was welcomed to Australia on a request from the FCAATSI, but was disappointed to see that he was being welcomed by the white leaders of the organization. Charles Perkins was even more paralyzed by the situation he could see on his travels to the United States. He could see Indians who were „drinking their lives away‟ (Costa 2006: 99-100). He thought that unless the situation of the Indigenous people of Australia changed, the same destiny awaited his people.

Mary Bennett was another activist who knew that it was international pressure that made Australia vulnerable. Her 1957 publication, Human Rights for Australian Aborigines, was annotated throughout with extracts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Chesterman 2005: 41).

Margaret Valadian traveled to the United States and stayed there for a few years, living with Afro-Americans and Indians. Black power with its own economic system made an impact on her, after visiting Jesse Jackson, the Afro-American activist. Thus, these inspirational interactions later established platforms for self-independent social and economic indigenous systems, organizations and services. „Shirley Andrews, the secretary of the Council for Aboriginal Rights‟, was another non-indigenous activist supporting indigenous rights (Chesterman 2005: 68). She acknowledged the international effect of embarrassment on Australia and used every opportunity to inform others about that, such as in the United Nations (Chesterman 2005: 68).

All of this publicity caused tension within various government departments, the Department of Territories warning state Aboriginal authorities that the treatment of Aboriginal people was likely to come before the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as the result of pressure from the Anti-Slavery Society. Andrews‟s success on this occasion in attracting publicity to the

practice of racial discrimination led her to consider other ways of bringing discrimination against Aboriginal people before the United Nations (Chesterman 2005: 70).

Travel outside Australia with a focus on exploring rights movements at the international level provided an important catalyst for change; „McGuinness stressed that such travel was invaluable in ensuring Australia‟s growth to racial equality by helping us all to understand and bypass the bitter tragedies of other countries‟ (Costa 2006: 99-100). Roberta Sykes spent some time in England in the 1970s. She made contacts with the local group, ABJAB, which was supporting indigenous people. Foley visited China to find more information that could be helpful for the Indigenous people of Australia; he learnt about „autonomous, economically self-reliant communities‟ (Costa 2006: 99-100), that were based, for instance, in the Workers Cultural Palace (Costa 2006: 99-100). These kind of models could be helpful for the Indigenous peoples of Australia to build their own confidence, ideas and identity. „In China, he felt we were treated, for the first time, as human beings‟ (Costa 2006: 99-100). These self-reliant models were later on used as an inspiration for establishing the first Aboriginal legal and health service. Other minorities would come to Australia that would leave a legacy in the formation of events and organizations, such as The National Aboriginal Day of Observance Committee in 1968 which was a meeting of indigenous minorities talking about Australian rights (Costa 2006: 99-100). „Foley added that there were two parts to the transnational rationale: learning new methods and causing embarrassment‟ (Costa 2006: 101). Indigenous activism was slowed down by the achievement of independent decolonized states who were struggling with building stable democracies, as well as European states feeling guilty about those issues. Moreover, the environmental struggles with corporate interests in natural resources made indigenous activism more difficult (Costa 2006: 114). Kevin Gilbert made note that the best protest against the white man is not against him literally, but against his attitude to equity, for his things are everything (Costa 2006: 118). The Indigenous people of Australia made an impact on the international body of the United Nations, which started examining „the civil and political rights of indigenous peoples‟ (Costa 2006: 121); the agenda for indigenous rights grew from this beginning. The concept of a „fourth world‟ that is peopled with indigenous people is credited to George Manuel (Costa 2006: 122). He emphasized that the Fourth world‟s identity is built mainly upon the spiritual dimension (Costa 2006: 123). The National Aboriginal Conference organized the World

Council on Indigenous Populations in 1981 in Canberra, in which 27 countries took part, with around 500 participants. The Indigenous people of Australia got the opportunity to speak up and scholars tried to find explanations for the reason that there has been exponential growth of the transnational movement since the 1960s, as well as the development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Costa 2006: 124). The 1982 Olympic Games and 1988 Bicentennial brought wide international attention as well to a symbolic occupation made by activists, both indigenous and non-indigenous, for the Indigenous people of Australia. Hence, support has been sought from the international community in various ways that could help them in their fight for indigenous rights. Although, there have been significant changes made by Australian governments since the growth of the movement in support of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, more progress needs to be made in order for these Australians to experience greater wellbeing related to the social, economic, political, housing situation. However, the international influence has made an impact on Australian governmental decisions that have brought several significant changes benefiting indigenous rights in Australia.

After the Second World War, the increased international pressure on the Australian government has been documented, thus forcing the Australian government to choose a different direction in their policy decisions. Two elements have helped to ensure the progress of wellbeing and justice for the Indigenous people of Australia – domestic activism and international criticism, with the embarrassment of Australia‟s breaking of international law. „The government archival record is replete with evidence that the government fear(s) international criticism‟ (Chesterman 2005: 23- 35). This has had the effect of moving the Australian government to change its policy as well (Chesterman 2005: 23). International instruments all helped to put pressure on the domestic government in Australia.

The reports of the Department of External Affairs contain a number of examples in which the governmental officers spoke about the danger faced from discriminatory policies and it is explicitly stated within the files of the Department of External Affairs that the fear of international criticism provided the wind of change of the Australian legislation towards better justice for Aborigines (Chesterman 2005: 43-44). A report on racial discrimination authored jointly by representatives of four departments, including the Department of External Affairs and

the Attorney-General‟s department, stated: In short, the Committee considered that the present international sensitivity on racial issues was such that criticism could fasten, suddenly and vehemently, on any country where it was possible to produce examples of discrimination, and the Committee concluded that there was an urgent need to remove, as far as practicable, instances of racial discrimination in Australia in order to ensure that Australia‟s international reputation and influence are not to be seriously endangered (Chesterman 2005: 73).

This information is contained in the 1960Post and Telegraph Act.

A year later, in 1961, the Department again urged the deletion of the section, pointing out that discrimination of this kind if publicized abroad could expose Australia to undesirable and unnecessary criticism, and arguing that to voluntarily repeal the section would be greatly preferable to action in response to international pressure (Chesterman 2005: 73).

And indeed diplomats from around the world were sending press clippings to the Department of External Affairs, warning that Australia‟s international reputation in the sphere of race relations, already low, had been further harmed. Both local and overseas reports frequently compared Australia‟s racial situation with that in the United States. An External Affairs internal memo of 22 February warned that it was important that the position of the aborigines or part aborigines in Australia be not associated with that of the Negroes in the United States (Curthoys 2002: 220).

„Foreign criticism or the fear of it, not only encouraged reform, but actually led Australia to make policy changes' (Chesterman 2005: 44). Hence, there is evidence of the Australian government‟s susceptibility to the international community, which can be held at least partially responsible for the changes that the government made regarding indigenous rights. Positive progress regarding indigenous rights, according to Costa (2006: 176), is the „founding of distinctive space for indigenous peoples in the UN system and articulation of a comprehensive draft statement in indigenous rights‟. However, more progress still needs to be made. According to Costa (2006: 170), an argument can be made that „although international standards do exist and have been ratified by Australians, the government has no obligation to support the bodies monitoring those norms‟. The consequence of this situation can be seen within the communities of Indigenous peoples of Australia and „Indigenous communal dysfunction, domestic violence, passive welfare‟ (Costa 2006: 171). Therefore, „the better balance between the pursuit of indigenous rights and the pursuit of better social outcomes for indigenous peoples‟ is desirable

(Costa 2006: 171). Three cases are examined to introduce the process and the results of the application of the Boomerang theory.

4 Research cases

4.1 The Freedom Ride The first case to be examined will demonstrate the ways in which the Boomerang effect has been used in indigenous rights activism in Australia and the results of this particular activism regarding the initiative, the Freedom Ride. Firstly, the international influence on the Freedom Ride is examined. Secondly, the process of the Freedom Ride is scrutinized. Thirdly, the results of the Freedom Ride movement are presented, and, lastly, a conclusion is provided. This case argues that the Boomerang effect only had limited potential in terms pressing government to made policy changes that could benefit the Indigenous peoples of Australia. It however created an initial platform for the later governmental and constitutional changes for indigenous rights in Australia, to be examined in the second case – the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

International influence, with the help of domestic activists, put pressure on the Australian government in relation to the mistreatment of the Indigenous people of Australia in terms of social welfare. In 1963, the International Labour Organization put pressure for equal wages. This situation was changed in 1966 when the Indigenous people of Australia in the Northern Territory working as stock workers, gained equal pay (Chesterman 2005: 52). From the 1960s, international criticism increased rapidly, particularly from the United Nations regarding the treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia by the Australian government (Chesterman 2005: 53). Criticism of apartheid was raised by the domestic as well as the international media (Chesterman 2005: 64). In 1964, the United Nations condemned Australia regarding its policy towards the Indigenous people of Australia; thus, the Australian government, especially the External Affairs department, became more worried about its overseas reputation. International influence that shaped and inspired the Freedom Ride movement in Australia included the civil rights activism in the United States and the process of decolonization. Specifically, activists were inspired by the Freedom Ride event in 1961 in the United States, Martin Luther‟s famous speech delivered in 1963, the arrival in Australia of artists such as Paul Robeson from the United States, and media footage containing pictures of dogs being led towards black children in Alabama (Curthoys et al. 2005: 12-13). According to King, a negative peace existed in Australia at that time. This meant that no conflicts would exist regarding the Indigenous peoples of Australia, as

long as they lived in their communities untouched from „White people‟ (O‟Connor 2005: 6). The paradox is that both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians were supporting the civil rights movement in the United States, which was well covered in Australian media. Therefore, the Freedom Ride in the United States was well covered in the Australian press as well (O‟Connor 2005: 6). Moreover, Australians were protesting against apartheid in South Africa. The students of the University of Sydney were aware of the problems that the Indigenous people of Australia were facing. Because they were informed about the Freedom Ride event that took place in the United States, they made a decision to organize a similar event in Australia. The main purpose for organizing this event was to attract public and governmental attention towards the Indigenous people of Australia and to put the issues facing these people on the national agenda. They knew that in order to make this event successful, they had to be well educated about the whole issue regarding the Indigenous people of Australia and to be well prepared.

To give the students some idea of the attitudes that they would face, Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail was published under the title "Our Struggle" and distributed to all the Australian freedom riders (O‟Connor 2005: 5).

Hence, the Boomerang effect in the Freedom Ride was used in the early 1960s, time, when Australians were criticizing discrimination happening in the United States and South Africa. However, by protesting against discrimination in other countries and ignoring the situation about the discrimination of the Indigenous people of Australia students at the University of Sydney were forced to think of how they could ensure wider public awareness and justice for the Indigenous people of Australia.

Universities and students became involved in the pursuit of justice and rights for Indigenous Australians. The establishment of the organization, Student Action for Aborigines, at the University of Sydney in 1964 became the centre for the consolidation of activist mobilization among students for the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Charles Perkins, a student of the University of Sydney, became the leader of the organization. The Freedom Ride case started „when thirty students travelled by bus over 1,300 miles through northern New South Wales‟ (Clark 2014: 104). This action was inspired by the American Freedom Ride movement, triggered by the African-American civil rights movement (Clark 2014: 197). One of the students, Bill Ford, got the opportunity to get a scholarship to study in the United States. He became involved 30

in the Freedom Ride there. Thanks to that experience, once he got back to Australia, he had valuable lessons to share with students engaged in the work of Student Action for Aborigines, emphasizing nonviolence and passive resistance (Curthoys 2002: 46). He told them:

If you find a segregated swimming pool just go and stand out in front of it. Just stand there. Don‟t go climbing over fences or trying to force your way in. The real key to this whole thing is to get some visual image across, to make certain that when you do something the press, radio and television know about it. But if you go into a segregated bar and someone pushes someone else aside and a brawl start – well, you‟ve lost everything. You‟ve got to have discipline. Don‟t dissipate your energy demonstrating all over the place. Pick out one or two key centres and make sure you‟ve got the camera on you. Remember a passive demonstration is the most effective. Any violence and you‟ve defeated our own purpose (Curthoys 2002: 47).

Students made precise plans to visit the following towns on the Freedom Ride– „Wellington, Gulargambone, Walgett, Moree, Boggabilla, Tabulam, Lismore, Bowraville, Kempsey and Taree – with some other towns on the way as stopovers. The trip covered a total distance of 1390 miles‟ (Curthoys 2002: 60). The whole event was intended to be carried out as social research, as well as a series of demonstrations in pursuit of justice for Indigenous Australians. The students thus made the decision to promote the goals based on the following proclamations:

I. To arouse public attention, especially within the University, to fundamental problems of the Indigenous people of Australia in health, education, housing etc.; 2. to break down social discrimination barriers to the extent possible by student action; and 3. to stimulate the interest of the Indigenous people of Australia in improving their situation within society (O‟Connor 2005: 7).

Hence, students decided to visit one of the most discriminated places to promote justice for the Indigenous. One of the main purposes of the Freedom Ride was that students wanted to bring indigenous issues to attention public so that discrimination could not be overlooked anymore. All that changed after the Freedom Ride, which attracted public and press attention to the affairs of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The Freedom Ride consisted of thirty members. Darce Cassidy, who belonged to this group of people, had a special role, since he was a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC Radio and TV). He was making a tape-recording of the whole event, of the demonstrations as well as the discussions among the students during the

Freedom Ride (Read 1988: 45). Ann Curthoys was one member of the Freedom Ride who kept a diary during this event. Jim Spigelman made footage of the Freedom Ride. The filming in this activist initiative showed the insight of Freedom Ride members, who acknowledged that, if the discrimination of Aboriginal peoples exposed in the smaller towns was recorded, then it could be shown to the wider Australian public living in the cities; thus, it could be used to make the sort of progress with activism for Indigenous Australians that could lead to real justice for these people in Australia. The Menzies government was in administration at the time of the Freedom Ride. Robert Menzies was the Prime Minister at that time; he served in this office from 1939 until 1941 and from1949 until 1966 (National Archives of Australia). During the Freedom Ride process, government members had not commented much on the actions organized by the students. The most probable reason for not doing so was to ensure white support in the upcoming country elections. The media started to criticize politicians for staying silent and not commenting more on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Mr W. F. Sheahan was the only minister to speak at any length about issues of the Indigenous people of Australia during the students‟ ride across towns, emphasizing his viewpoint against the discrimination in health services. He emphasized that the health services must be alert to and cautious about the discrimination of the Indigenous people of Australia in the form of segregation between white and Indigenous patients. He warned that, otherwise, subsidies could be decreased if discriminatory practices were discovered in Australian hospitals (Curthoys 2002: 169). The Commonwealth, as well as the State governments were sensitive to any criticism at that time. The state governments were about to hold state elections and were vulnerable to any issues brought up regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. The Commonwealth government was profoundly worried about its own reputation abroad regarding discriminatory policies towards the Indigenous people of Australia (Curthoys 2002: 170). During the Freedom Ride movement, students found out that some Indigenous peoples of Australia acknowledged their history and the way in which their experiences had brought them to present situation. The Indigenous people of Australia, such as Edna Craigy, explained that Indigenous people in Moree knew exactly where they could and could not go, and who they could and could not talk to in order not to get into any trouble. „Aborigines had experienced segregation for generations, to the point where it was almost routine and conventional‟ (Edmonds 2012: 167). They sort of got used to the way white people were treating them and that is why the students‟ action showed Indigenous Australians 32

that it was alright to stand up for themselves and that things could be changed. The exposition of racial discrimination was one of the successes that the students of the Freedom Ride had (O‟Connor 2005: 8). Some critics accused the Freedom Ride event of creating problems for the Indigenous peoples of Australia by expanding animosity, hatred, pressure and by raising issues to the surface, but not doing anything to solve those issues afterwards; these criticisms felt that the students had left the Indigenous peoples of Australia to deal with the problems themselves. However, raising awareness about the issues of the Indigenous people of Australia helped to end ignorance. That situation thus created the platform for the social changes to come (O‟Connor 2005: 9). Another success achieved by the Freedom Ride was attracting attention from the domestic and international press, such as the New York Times (Edmonds 2012: 171). Charles Perkins, who led the Freedom Ride in 1965, attracted even more public attention after the event. Later on, he became director of the Foundation for Aboriginal Affairs, which had a significant impact on promoting positive results in the 1967Referendum. He then became the first Indigenous official within a government department in the federal Australian government. He first worked in the Council of Aboriginal Affairs in 1969, then in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1973, leading him on to leadership positions and „to becoming its deputy secretary in 1979 and its secretary in 1984, after a period chairing the Aboriginal Development Commission‟ (Curthoys 2012: 28). All his activities attracted a lot of public attention that also helped to raise awareness of the Freedom Ride. Even though the Freedom Ride did not develop to the same extent as it did in the United States, the situation and the way the Freedom Ride happened and resulted in both countries, was similar. Therefore, the Boomerang effect in the Freedom Ride was used inspirationally and as a means of gathering information and lessons about the Freedom Ride in the United States in 1961, where civil activists were protesting against discrimination in southern towns in the United States; they wished to learn more, and to learn how to attract public and media attention. However, the Australian state government response was not seen much during the Freedom Ride in Australia in 1965, due to the upcoming elections; thus the results of the Freedom Ride in 1965 only began to be seen after the elections. The Commonwealth government cared about its reputation overseas and was more likely to be susceptible to the domestic and overseas pressure during and after the Freedom Ride.

The Freedom Ride event had both pros and cons for the Indigenous peoples of Australia. It did attract public attention that could put pressure to make changes changes to the government‟s discriminatory policies regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. It helped to serve as a catalyst to support these people to stand up for themselves and to be more active in pursuing their rights and justice. Harold Holt became Prime Minister, from 1966 until 1967 when the 1967 Referendum happened, as well as the change of the Constitution. It also led partially to the 1967 Referendum due to initiating public discussion about the affairs of Indigenous Australians (National Archives of Australia). Moreover, Holt was responsible for triggering the process that led to the diminution of the White Australia Policy. Some scholars consider the Freedom Ride as a catalyst that led to the 1967 Referendum. Faith Bandler was one of the key persons to help make the 1967 Referendum a reality. Her ideas were inspired by the African-American movement in the United States in the 1960s (Curthoys et al. 2005: 11). The 1967 referendum, which was partially influenced by the Freedom Ride, led to changes in two amendments regarding the Indigenous people of Australia within the Australian Constitution.

Specifically, it repealed section 127 and the racist clause of section 51(26). This gave the Commonwealth a concurrent right to legislate in the area of Aboriginal affairs and enabled the counting of indigenous peoples in the national census (Costa 2006: 90).

Peter Read mentioned that the referendum was supposed to be one of the most successful key moments after the 1945 rulings on the affairs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. However, the actual consequences of that referendum have not changed much according to some scholars. A benefit created by this referendum could be the greater consolidation of Aboriginal activism. Some of the activists, such as Tim Rowse, attributed the 1967 Referendum as being a step towards the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (Costa 2006: 90-91).

The nationwide campaign for constitutional change was gaining momentum, a month after the students returned, Prime Minister Menzies agreed on 1 April to hold a Referendum on whether section 127 of the Constitution should be repealed, though refused to do the same for section 51. Two days earlier, the tide had turned when Billy Wentworth, a Liberal backbencher, spoke in the House of Representatives in support of a Referendum on both sections. A bipartisan policy now seemed likely to emerge (Curthoys 2002: 230).

One of the most prominent Aboriginal activists, Gary Foley, saw the 1967 Referendum as an event that triggered a lot of Indigenous peoples of Australia to move into cities (Costa 2006: 97). „A referendum was passed, allowing the federal government to take full responsibility for Aboriginal affairs and enabling Aborigines to be counted in the national census‟ (Lothian 2005: 181). The 1967 Referendum was mainly symbolic action. However, it consequently led to greater confidence and the consolidation of a movement claiming indigenous rights in Australia (Lothian 2005: 182).

Jim Spigelman, a freedom rider who later became a NSW Supreme Court judge remarked: "I'm not saying there wouldn't have been a referendum without it, but it was one of the things which created the circumstances in which the Referendum was successful, and that obviously has ongoing effects (O‟Connor 2005: 8).

One of the important effects was that this initiative opened a dialogue that increased the possibility of Indogenous Australians being formally acknowledged as Australian citizens. In the 1967 Referendum, the fast that 90,77% of non-indigenous Australians were voting ‚„yes„ to the changes in the Australian Constitution was a huge success because it showed that most Australians agreed on constitutional changes regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. The 1967 Referendum finished official discrimination that was exposed to the Indigenous people in Australia. Discriminatory words were removed from sections 51 and 127 in the Australian constitution. This built a foundation for the later establishment of the first Aboriginal legal and medical services. The aims of the Freedom Ride were fulfilled since its aims were to attract public attention and to put pressure on state and federal government Australia. That led to many changes, for instance, such as: allowing Indigenous people to use the swimming pool in Moree; a decision by the local government in Moree to spend more money on housing for Indigenous people; the breaking down of restrictions against Indigenous people working in the Walgett RSL club; the easing of interactions between non-Indigenous and Indigenous people of Australia; and the encouragement of Indigenous Australians to be more active in fighting for their rights. However, on the other hand, the Freedom Ride made some non-Indigenous Australians even more convinced about the necessity of segregation between the non-Indigenous and Indigenous people of Australia. Also, when the Freedom Ride members left towns they visited, it is believed that they only pointed out at the problems that were raised on the surface and the Indigenous

people of Australia had to deal with the tensions that remained between them and on-Indigenous Australians. Referendum 1967 was thus a result of domestic and international pressure as well as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (Chesterman 2005: 87). The students‟ Freedom Ride action had a transnational impact reaching the local, national as well as international environment (Curthoys 2002: 210). The Freedom Ride attracted not only the national press media, but international ones as well on almost all continents, for instance, in The New York Times, NY Herald Tribune or The British Times and many European media institutions (Curthoys 2002: 219). Most of them were very supportive of the student action against discrimination. The Cape Argus, in South Africa, maintained a positive view about the Freedom Ride. Many student institutions were inspired by the story, which they helped to spread around the world. The Pakistan media, The Morning News, as well as the Burma‟s The Working People’s Daily mentioned the Freedom Ride (Curthoys 2002: 220). Australia was even more sensitive to the Asian response to the Australian practice of the White Man‟s Policy. National as well as international media started to make comparisons between Australian policy towards and treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia with the United States treatment of Afro- American people. Domestic opposition was becoming stronger as well. The pressure, made on both State and Commonwealth governments, began to have some results. A conference was organized on 22 July in 1965, where Commonwealth as well as state ministers met, after which an announcement was made in relation to the assimilation policy regarding Aboriginal people; the message was that it should be entirely the decision of the Indigenous people of Australia whether they would like to participate more fully and thus enjoy the same rights and equality as non-Indigenous people. It was acknowledged that this approach would not disallow maintaining the culture of the Indigenous people of Australia. In order not to be attacked by public opinion, the government, after elections, increased funding for the accommodation of Indigenous people as well (Curthoys 2002: 247). Hence, even though international influence inspired Aboriginal activists to create the Freedom Ride in Australia in 1965, which attracted domestic and international public and media attention, the Boomerang effect of pressing government created some changes that would benefit more fully the wellbeing and justice of Indigenous Australians. It also created a platform for the consolidation of Aboriginal activism that led to one of the biggest events in transnational Aboriginal protests in the twentieth history – the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. 36

To conclude, the rising international influence in the 1960s was firstly examined, in the form of criticism and the response of the Australian government, who became worried about their image regarding their treatment of Indigenous people, and in the form of the inspiration provided by the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the decolonization process that led to the Freedom Ride in Australia in 1965. Secondly, the process of the Freedom Ride was examined. It scrutinized the preparation of students involved in Student Action For Aborigines and the Freedom Ride, which was done very carefully in order to attract media and thus make the Boomerang theory effective. They were gathering all the information possible to make it happen. They had to educate themselves about Indigenous people, towns they would visit, funds they would need and ways to get them while staying independent, and about how to gather more publicity. They made a compromise to structure the Freedom Ride as a survey as well as a protest. The Freedom Ride was deliberately used to attract public media, both domestic as well as international, who could make aware people more about the affairs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and inform them about their situation. Media and public attention put pressure on Commonwealth and State governments to make changes within their policies. Darce Cassidy, an activist member of the Freedom Ride, worked for ABC media and thus helped to make the case more public in the media. As the Freedom Ride progressed, more reporters joined the Freedom Ride on the bus and helped to make the case more public. Australian support of civil rights in the United States, as well as demonstrations against apartheid in South Africa forced Australians to acknowledge the hypocrisy enacted by supporting the elimination of discrimination overseas, but ignoring discrimination against its own Indigenous people in Australia. The Australian government hesitated about its position regarding the sanctioning of South Africa. The Commonwealth government was more likely to be fragile under pressure than the state governments. However, it was bounded by the Constitution to make any changes possible – specifically by articles 51 and 127. Thirdly, the results made by Freedom Ride were provided. Some members of Freedom Ride stayed in touch and visited towns and the Indigenous people of Australia in rural areas again. Other students and the sympathizers of the Indigenous have learnt about the experience and tactics of the Freedom Ride members and many people tried to make surveys and contacts with the Indigenous Australians, such as doctors or lawyers that would further help them in the future with legal and health services. More contacts were made between the rural and urban Indigenous people. The elements of non-violence, passive resistance and 37

creative tension inspired by Martin Luther King, were implemented in the way the Freedom Ride operated. It inspired more demonstrations in the pursuit of justice, a current example being, for instance, those recent protests regarding asylum seekers being kept in detention centres. The results of the Freedom Ride and the domestic and international pressure related to the Boomerang theory were reflected and partly responsible for the 1967 Referendum, which led to changes within the Australian Constitution that removed discriminatory clauses and the breakdown of the Whiteman‟s policy in 1972. The next chapter discusses the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Some of the activists who gained experience in the Freedom Ride movement and activism relating to the 1967 Referendum formulated a group, Black Caucus, that was inspired by the philosophy and culture of black power, and motivated Aboriginal communities to seek and access free self-help service, for instance, legal and health services. This Redfern group became inspired also by the Black Panther Party in the United States. Later on, some members of the group became part of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy event, the key moment for the Indigenous people of Australia in their pursuit of justice.

Picture 2: Sequence of patterns of Boomerang effect regarding the Freedom Ride:

4.2 The Aboriginal Tent Embassy The scrutinization of this case is going to examine the ways the Boomerang effect was used in activism for indigenous rights in Australia, and what the results were of this particular activism regarding the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. While the Freedom Ride emphasized civil rights as the main goal, the Tent Embassy stressed land rights. Firstly, the influence of the black power movement on the Indigenous people of Australian activism is scrutinized. Secondly, the process of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy is examined. Thirdly, the focus on Aboriginal Tent Embassy which attracted the international attention that put pressure on the Australian government is examined. Next, the reconciliation process is presented, after which the results of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy are provided. Lastly, the conclusions are presented. This case argues for the potential efficacy of the Boomerang effect in pressing government to make policy changes that benefit Indigenous peoples in Australia.

The increased activism of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, influenced by the Black Power Movement, can be seen since as early as the 1960s (Curthoys et al. 2005: 198). Foley was inspired by the speech made by Martin Luther King Jr. Foley was politically active within one of the largest suburbs, Redfern, in Sydney in the 1960s, in many events and organizations led by leaders like Charles Perkins and Chicka Dixon. Indigenous activists, such as Foley or Kevin Gilbert, were inspired by writers and activists such as Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, as well as Afro-American literature (Costa 2006: 98). Thus, Indigenous people of Australia were influenced by black power. The philosophical underpinnings for the Australian movement were first created during Meredith‟s „march against fear‟, in which James Meredith was shot in 1966 and treated in hospital afterwards (Costa 2006: 103). Some scholars argued that, by adopting transnational concepts of different minorities, such as that of black power, with its own slogans and nuances more suited to the US environment, the development of Indigenous Australians could be hampered as they could be in danger of losing their own identity. However, these borrowed underpinnings helped to build the dignity and confidence of the Australian Indigenous people, and inspired them with new ideas of how to be active within a social movement (Costa 2006: 104). The Black Panther Party in the United States influenced the establishment of the Black Panther Party in Australia in 1971. This Australian chapter of Black Panther had an impact on the creation of a more equitable social welfare system in the 1970s in Australia, for instance

in the case of free Aboriginal health, child-care and legal services. The Indigenous people of Australia also set up the first women‟s refuges in this country (Costa 2006: 109). This could indicate patterns reinforced by the process of black power that define these activities as indications of self-determination in the process. Black power in the form of Black Panther in Australia was strictly articulated against all forms of discrimination (Lothian 2005: 179), and inspired the activism of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; however, this organization insisted on Indigenous Australians pursuing their own culture and identity, distinct from the African-American one. Their slogan „Black is beautiful‟ was adopted by Indigenous Australians and they were quick to name someone „Uncle Tom‟ if they showed signs of discrimination (Lothian 2005: 184). Although African-Americans and Indigenous Australians had their distinctive cultures, their pursuit of basic human rights was common to both groups (Lothian 2005: 187). Therefore, in spite of the minimal members affiliated with the Black Panther Party in Australia, the message of the Black Panther philosophy was adopted successfully within the social welfare system, and increased activism against discrimination during the 1960s and 1970s in Australia (Lothian 2005: 188). From the 1960s, the process of education and access to information through various forms, such as articles, newspapers, letters and brochures, created a platform for better interconnection between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander activists, as well as connection with other minorities (Costa 2006: 106).

The Indigenous legal service and the Indigenous Medical Service was created also due to the help of white supporters such as Hal Wootten and Dr Fred Hollows (Costa 2006: 107-108). The National Tribal Council was created in 1970. That Council called for land rights for the Indigenous, compensation, better social opportunity and access to education, health and work opportunity, and helped to keep their culture alive. In 1972, The National Black Theatre was established. It helped to serve as a cultural institution as well as a social welfare hub. Most importantly, black power helped to examine the identity of Indigenous Australians. Some activists for indigenous rights who were associated with black power, the Redfern community and the National Black Theatre became involved in the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. The international inspiration supplied by black power to the Indigenous people of Australia helped them to realize that they could be proud of their own culture. Thus, international influence helped the Indigenous people of Australia to search and be proud of their own identity and

culture. Consequently, that process of trying to find Aboriginal identity and being proud of it could have potentially led to the creation of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy – a unique form of Australian Aboriginal protest on a transnational scale.

A key moment in Indigenous activism in Australia was the setting up of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in 1972, in front of the Parliament House in Canberra. This was a reaction to Prime Minister McMahon‟s statement, which was understood by Indigenous activists to deny land rights to the Indigenous people of Australia; rather they were given only a twenty-five year lease (Costa 2006: 92). William McMahon was Prime Minister between 1971 and 1972 (National Archives of Australia). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was set up one day after McMahon‟s speech (Irene 2000: 17), and is considered to be one of the clearest examples by which to identify the nature and process of Aboriginal activism and transnationalism. The embassy was originally set up by „Billy Craigie, Tony Coorie, Bird Williams and Michae1 Anderson‟ (Costa 2006: 110). Other Aboriginal Tent Embassy protesters were associated with Black Power and the Black Panther Party, whose members included „Denis Walker, Paul Coe, Gary Foley, Gary Williams, Billy Craigie and Jim Dohery‟ (Lothian 2007: 20). The Embassy protesters were assuming that setting ups umbrellas on the lawn of the Parliament House was unlawful and that, therefore, they would be arrested. They felt that that would help to bring their case up in front of the international media and international bodies such as „the High Court and the International Court of Justice‟ ((Muldoon et al. 2012: 538). Once they learnt that there had to be more than eleven tents in order to be arrested, they set up the proper number of tents the very next day (Muldoon et al. 2012: 538). Thus, activists found loopholes within the legislation allowing them to stay and camp on the property of the Parliament House. They firstly used umbrellas to represent the embassy and later on, they changed to tents. They set up their own letterbox in which letters started being received. One of the activists, Gilbert, was inspired to set up the embassy by one activist who had fastened himself in front of the Parliament House in Canberra to stress the treatment of Pakistani refugees. As a successful outcome, he gathered 7 million dollars from foreign aid. Although, the African-Americans movement was inspired to set up an embassy as well, for instance „the American Indian Movement occupied the island of Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay in 1969‟ (Costa 2006: 110). Gary Foley explained that they set up tents that were representing the embassy of the Indigenous people of Australia because Australia makes

them aliens in their own land, so they need their own embassy, body which would be able to represent them. The event brought attention including mobilization of the Indigenous people of Australia throughout Australia. Among the main goals of Aboriginal Tent Embassy are the following claims.

First, control of the Northern Territory as a state within the Commonwealth of Australia, the parliament in the Northern Territory to be predominantly Indigenous with title and mining rights to all land within the Territory. Second, legal title and mining rights to all other presently existing reserve lands and settlements throughout Australia. Third, the preservation of all sacred sites in Australia. Fourth, legal title and mining rights to areas in and around all Australians. Fifth, compensation for lands not returnable to take the form of a downpayment of six billion dollars and an annual percentage of the gross national income‟ (Foley et. al. 2010: 33-34).

During the setting up of the Embassy, the McMahon government became anxious about the whole event. Therefore, the government soon passed a new law to make camping on the property of Parliament House a criminal act, and removed the Embassy on 20th July 1972 (Foley 2012: 18). However, Indigenous activists set up the Embassy again three days later, with a few thousand peoples as a back-up. The embassy was removed by force again, leaving many injured. This event raised international attention again and was well covered by the media. A week later, a few thousand supporters and Indigenous Australians set up the Embassy again. At that time, the government established a „force in the form of ACT Police, backed up by two contingents from the NSW Police Riot Squad and several busloads of soldiers from Royal Military College at Duntroon‟ (Foley 2012: 19). The protestors, aware of the vulnerable participants including elders and children, decided to permit the police to remove the Embassy and made statement of „moral victory‟ (Foley 2012: 19). This process was repeated over the next years until Charles Perkins agreed that „its temporary removal (was) on the promise of action on land rights‟ (McArthur et. al. 2014: 159). The event was well covered by press, not only in Australia, but overseas as well. It led to further resentment against the McMahon government and finally this event led to

the demise of the McMahon administration which six months later in December 1972 was voted out of office in one of the biggest political landslides in Australian history and was replaced by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (Foley 2012: 19).

Thus, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was initially used in a way that would bring public and media attention and consequently put pressure on the federal government. The domestic and international opposition led to the demise of the McMahon government and negotiations with the government to give land rights to the Indigenous people of Australia if government wanted to downplay the effect of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, which has the potential to cause a lot of embarrassment of the government and to destroy the image of the Australian government.

The Embassy soon became one of the most favorite tourism sights in Canberra and became an international attraction by bringing press media from more than thirty countries (Foley 2012: 10). It opened the eyes of other Australian citizens, who discovered more about the lives of Indigenous Australians. Also, it brought international attention in another form. A lot of representatives from other countries visited the Embassy and the issue was covered by the media.

Among the international media that covered the Embassy were, The Guardian, the New York Times, Le Figaro, Time magazine, the Israeli Post, and Le Monde. As well as papers as far afield as Manila, Norway, Tokyo, Beijing, New Delhi, Jamaica, and Malaysia. With that sort of local and international media coverage, it very quickly became apparent that the Embassy protest was becoming a major political embarrassment for the McMahon Government (Foley 2012: 17).

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy caused international embarrassment to Australia. International pressure gained so much attention that the Australian government started being worried because it looked like other states could set up an embargo against Australia (Costa 2006: 113). The repression and tension of the police around the issue of removing the Embassy raised awareness abroad. International actors were criticizing the Australian government practices towards Indigenous Australians, in denying land rights and justice to them. „The Embassy is the only site that is recognized both nationally and internationally as representing the grassroots fight for recognition of Aboriginal Sovereignty‟ (Gilbert 2000: 89). The international media in the Aboriginal Embassy played an important role, because the domestic media had the potential to be biased by local politics, whereas the international media was able to show the news more directly as it was. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy did not draw its inspiration from any similar protests from overseas, such as the Freedom Ride and thus was, in a sense, unique, along with other such protests, such as the Yirrkala Bark Petition (Foley et al. 2010: 112). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy led to the shaming of the Australian government because, while protesters were

staying on the property in front of the Parliament House, „the president of Indonesia or the queen of England‟ (Foley et al. 2010: 78) could see and approach them while the latter were attending meetings with the Australian government. The protesters organized lectures for those who were interested in getting to know more about Aboriginal culture. Many journalists became friends with the activists and thus, media news could be spread around more feasibly. Some of the protesters were „invited for a lunch in a Parliament House with the Labour MP‟s‟ (Foley et al. 2010: 38). Thus, the Boomerang effect applied forcefully via the media and public attention. All of that pressure led to embarrassment and fear on the part of the government. That fear could have potentially stemmed from Australia losing its positive image in the eyes of the world, which that could, in turn, lead them to be excluded from the international community of democracies and to lose moral and material integrity, for instance in the form of inconvenient trade policies with other countries.

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is a shining symbol of the continuing fight by the Indigenous people in Australia for their rights since 1972 (Muldoon et al. 2012: 534). Since the 1960s, the Indigenous activism had been triggered by transnational events and movements. The growth in confidence and effectiveness of the Australian Indigenous activist movement led to the process of reconciliation with the supporting bodies that helped with the reconciliation of the majority of Australians and the Indigenous people of the Australia. „Reconciliation Place was commissioned by the Federal Government's National Capital Authority (NCA)‟ (Muldoon et al. 2012: 539). „Old Parliament House now houses the National Museum of Democracy‟, which presents the process of the regime that Australia went through over time (Muldoon et al. 2012: 541). „The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) or Federal Council for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders‟ (Muldoon et al. 2012: 535) are special bodies, trying to enhance the relationship in this process. Taking into account the fact that the formal reconciliation was about to end in 2001, it can be said that it came to an end in 2008 with the Rudd apology directed towards Indigenous Australians. Among the places that have been emphasizing reconciliation, the „Reconciliation Place in Canberra and the Myall Creek massacre monument in the New South Wales‟ are two beacons (Harris 2003: 74). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was re-enacted in the 1992 to commemorate its 20 years anniversary. Since then, it is still in place at Old Parliament House in Canberra. In 2012, it attracted public media by protesters demonstrating for Aboriginal

affairs. However, not all Indigenous people in Australia agree with the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Some actors, such as „the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and representatives of the traditional owners of the area on which the Embassy is located, the Ngunnawal people‟ (Harris 2003: 86), prefer the dismantling of the embassy and the construction of a memorial instead. Therefore, in 2001, Reconciliation Place was set up in Canberra as a symbol acknowledging the long history of Indigenous peoples in Australia (Harris 2003: 88). The government built Reconciliation Place do that it would serve as a reflection of Aboriginal history, as well as a substitute for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. „Reconciliation Place was fashioned as a permanent memorial that all Australians would be proud of and which might have more reconciliation value. The New Parliament House, architecturally configured as two conjoining boomerangs‟ (Foley et al. 2010: 227). Thus, the Australian government has been struggling with the concept of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy because of its potential to most likely damage Australia‟s reputation with regard to its treatment of Indigenous Australians; therefore, the government tried to create a different concept in which their image might be see in a different and better light. Thus, the result of the government response to the pressure was to build Reconciliation Place so that less public and media attention would be paid to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

The consequences of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy initiative have been significant. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy protest in 1972 created wider understanding of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, not only in Australia, but abroad as well (Foley 2012: 20). „The consequence of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy led to the establishment of international support for instance by The National Aboriginal & Islander Health Organization (NAIHO), which established information centres‟ (Foley 2012: 22). Information centres provided information about Aboriginal justice throughout all Europe. International attention towards the Aboriginal Tent Embassy created a platform by which to embarrass the Australian government. „Australia‟s indigenous population had not all died out, as the assimilationist Australian Government propaganda had claimed, but rather had developed throughout the 20th Century into a highly sophisticated resistance struggle‟ (Foley 2012: 27). The Aboriginal Tent embassy is also remembered as the tip of the iceberg of Indigenous activism for justice. „The Whitlam government, elected in 1972, announced self- determination as the framework for Aboriginal Affairs policy and a cessation of mining

applications licenses on Commonwealth Aboriginal Reserves‟ (McArthur et al. 2014: 158). Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972 and served in this office until 5th December 1975 (National Archives of Australia). Just ten days after his election, the Whitlam government became committed to the idea of land rights by ‘setting in train a Royal Commission into Aboriginal land rights‟ (National Archives of Australia). Moreover, „the findings of the Royal Commission would lead to the drafting of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The government also established the Department of Aboriginal Affairs‟ (National Archives of Australia). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy led to the implementation and ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 in form of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 in Australia under the Whitlam administration (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). From late 1975 until 1983 (National Archives of Australia), Malcolm Fraser was the Prime Minister; he was devoted to social issues, including the issues of the Indigenous people of Australia. In 1976, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was adopted under the Fraser administration, enabling the granting of land titles to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. „The Fraser government also passed the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, giving effect to five international human rights instruments, and established the Human Rights Commission‟ (National Archives of Australia). Later, from 1983 until 1991, Bob Hawke served as Prime Minister (National Archives of Australia). Paul Keating became Prime Minister in 1991and served in this role until1996; he was heavily involved in the issues of Indigenous Australians. „The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established by the Keating government in February 1992, under the Hawke government‟s Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991‟ (National Archives of Australia). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was built again and took place in front of „the Old Parliament House in 1992‟ (McArthur et al. 2014: 159). In 1992, the Mabo case proceeded and led to the granting of Native Title for Indigenous Australians under the administration of Keating as well and the overcoming of the Terra Nullius principle; this meant that the Indigenous Australians were the first inhabitants who had native title to the land, as long as the land has not been sold. „In December 1993, the government passed the Native Title Act to place the Mabo decision in Australian law‟ (McArthur et al. 2014: 159). Following on from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy protest in 1972, one of the activists and participants, barrister, Paul Coe, presented, in 1992, the „Declaration of Aboriginal sovereignty to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs‟, Mr Tickner (Muldoon et al. 2012: 536-537), as well as to 46

the United Nations, all embassies in Australia and to the International Court of Justice, thereby, forcing the international attention on Indigenous issues once again (Foley et al. 2010: 192). Another consequence of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was that the action forced the government to acknowledge the site by adding it to the „Register of the National Estate in 1995‟ (Lothian 2007: 29). In 1996, the Wik decision took place, in which the High Court of Australia decided that Native Title could still be applied and enforced by law, depending on specific and conditions of statutory pastoral leases. The Native Title amendment act took place in 1998. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy does not consider Native Title as land rights (Gilbert 2000: 90).

In 1999 On Friday 12 March Australia appears before the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) - the first Western nation called to 'please explain' the deteriorating race relations and implications of the Native Title Acts and the '10 Point Plan. The long awaited international scrutiny has begun (Gilbert 2000: 93).

Some of the consequences of Australian treatment of the Indigenous people in Australia have had international impact for Australia for instance in relations to European Union based on the Australian unwillingness to sign „the European Union standard trade contract because of the Human Rights clause, which could allow international scrutiny of Australia's treatment of Aboriginal Peoples (Gilbert 2000: 92).

Moreover Australia has been denied some European grants due to the dim view that has been taken of the Federal Government‟s responses to the calls for justice for Indigenous Australians. Also, less than optimum trade agreements now exist between the European Union and Australia as a consequence of the Australian government‟s refusal of the Human Rights clause (Gilbert 2000: 92). The Aboriginal Tent Embassy, as well as the Freedom Ride, have become intertwined with the continually expanding consciousness of a wider group of Australians and the Labour party regarding Indigenous issues. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was associated with the presence of protesters and members of the black power movement, Black Panther Party, Black Caucus and Redfern community. The whole process of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was related to the „Aboriginal Medical service, Legal service, Child care centre and Aboriginal theatre‟ (Foley et al. 2010: XXIII). The „Aboriginal Tent Embassy helped with removing the McMahon government, the end of the assimilation era and putting Aboriginal Affairs on the governmental agenda for the first time in history‟ (Foley et al. 2010: XXV), „unified the Indigenous people

around the struggle for national rights and asserted Aboriginal sovereignty as the basis for Indigenous rights‟ (Foley et al. 2010: 220). It led to the Apology in 2008 by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It helped as well with setting up the platform in which the United Nations developed a charter of rights for Indigenous people (Foley et al. 2010: 209). However it did not help with granting land rights, which was a main goal of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. „Native title is not land rights. Reconciliation is not justice‟ (Foley et al. 2010: 209).

The episode highlights the ambiguous status of Aboriginal people as citizens both within and without the community presupposed by the constitutional order. This ambiguous status has proved a double-edged sword for Indigenous people. Most devastatingly, it makes the Indigenous people of Australia susceptible to discriminatory treatment in which their cultural difference serves as a pretext for the restriction or suspension of their rights as citizens. This is exemplified in the ongoing Northern Territory National Emergency response. Yet to some extent it also enables the Indigenous people of Australia to find a register within the constitutional order to bring their claim against it. The Embassy activists are thus able to present a rival image of political community to that presupposed by the constituted order by virtue of their status as immanent outsiders (Foley et al. 2010: 233-4).

As explained, self-determination is about the decision, whereas sovereignty is about the right (Foley et al. 2010: 193). Hence, the results above show that the Boomerang process has been having long-term effects on the Australian government, as well as on the Indigenous people of Australia. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy led to many significant changes regarding the Indigenous peoples of Australia, mainly acknowledging them on the national as well as international agenda; however, the main goal of Aboriginal Tent Embassy – to achieve land rights for the Indigenous people in Australia – has not yet been fully achieved.

To conclude, the focus on black power that inspired some of the activists involved in the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was presented at the outset of this section. The black power movement incorporated ideas of black self-empowerment from the civil rights movement in the United States; Aboriginal activists used these ideas to further their own activism. Secondly, the examination of the Boomerang effect showed that it was used in such a way as to attract the attention of the public and the mass media, on both a national as well as an international level. Aboriginal activists came out with the idea of protesting against the Australian government after

the McMahon government rejected the plea for land rights for the Indigenous people of Australia – their main goal. The first intention of the protesters was to set up an umbrella on the lawn of the Parliament House. They thought that they would be caught for that action and put into the prison and thereby attract needed media attention. What the protesters found out was that a loophole in a law stated that they could camp on the property of the Parliament House as long as there were not more than eleven tents. From that point, the activists used this opportunity and later on exchanged the umbrella for tents and called their establishment the „Aboriginal Tent Embassy‟. This unique way and characteristically larrikin style of protesting helped to change the situation of the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Thirdly, the Boomerang effect on the Australian government was examined. Although it has not so far, granted the demand for land rights, it did lead to a growing awareness, not only among the wider Australian population, but also among the international community. A lot of protesters became friends with reporters such as Stewart Harris from The London Times and, quite soon after, the setting up of the embassy became the main landmark in Canberra that tourists could see. The governmental violence associated with the removal of the embassy helped to gain ever-growing international media coverage; a lot of reports were front-page. Moreover, more international representative, such as the Queen or the president of Indonesia, were able to meet activists in front of the Australian Parliament. The growing domestic opposition and the Labour party‟s increasing understanding of the situation of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, coupled with the international media coverage of the Embassy from all around the world in Asia, America, Europe and Africa, caused a Boomerang effect in the form of pressure on the Australian government that harmed Australia‟s image and prestige. The fear not only of losing moral integrity, but material integrity as well, and the fear of some countries putting an embargo on Australia‟s trading agreements hastened governmental changes. This section also observed the reconciliation between the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the wider Australian public. The formalizing of reconciliation was achieved in 2001 with the establishment of Reconciliation Place in Canberra, although some scholars consider that reconciliation was only formally acknowledged in 2008 with the Rudd apology. Reconciliation Place in Canberra represents a cultural reminder of the Indigenous people of Australia and the symbolic substitution of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy for right to Native Title. The results of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy were also examined. This protest led to the removal of the McMahon administration and the setting up of the new Labour 49

Whitlam administration. That led for the first time to real emphasis being placed on Aboriginal affairs by state administrations, as well as on integrational rather than the politics of assimilation. Landmark events followed: the establishment of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act; the 1976 NT Land Rights Act; the 1992 Mabo decision; the 1993 Native Title Act; the registering of the embassy at the Register of the National Estate in 1995; the 1996 Wik decision; the 1998 Native Title Amendment; and the apology of Prime Minister Rudd in 2008. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy thus helped to put the affairs of the Indigenous people of Australia on the governmental agenda for the first time in history, which helped put an end to assimilationist policies. However, it did not lead to the main goal of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy – that is, the recognition of land rights for the Indigenous peoples of Australia. Unfortunately, some progress that was made in recent years by Australian government policies regarding Indigenous rights in Australia have recently been breached in the Northern Territory Intervention.

Picture 3: Sequence of patterns of Boomerang effect regarding the Embassy:

4.3 The Northern Territory Intervention In this final case analysis, the particular activism resulting from the Northern Territory Intervention will be examined to determine the ways in which the Boomerang effect was used to appeal for indigenous rights in Australia; the outcomes following this activism will be scrutinized. While the Freedom Ride emphasized civil rights as the main goal, and the Tent Embassy stressed land rights, activists against The Northern Territory Intervention argue against the breaches of international treaties to which the Australian government is signatory. Firstly, the focus is directed towards the process of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act, known more popularly as the „Intervention‟. Secondly, breaches of international treaties signed by the Australian government and the consequences of the Intervention are examined. Thirdly, the justification given by the Australian government for the Intervention is scrutinized. Fourthly, the condemnation of the international community on the Intervention is examined. Next, the changes made by the Australian government in relation to the intervention via the introduction of a new policy – Stronger Futures – is scrutinized. Finally, some conclusions are drawn. This case argues that the Boomerang effect has made limited progress in pressing the Australian government to make policy changes that benefit the Indigenous peoples of Australia.

After raised some issues relating to the statistics on abused children, the Australian government created a Board of Inquiry to examine the issue more intensively. As a result, the report „Little Children are Sacred: Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse‟ was issued, and the Australian government passed the „Northern Territory National Emergency Response‟ legislation (Partridge 2013: 400). John Howard, Prime Minister between 1996 and 2007, launched the Intervention (National Archives of Australia). On the one hand, the intervention was supported by the government; on the other, there were many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as well as non-indigenous people, various institutions and scholars, such as „Cox 2012, 2011; Behrendt 2010, 2008; Altman 2011a, 2011b, 2008; Altman and Johns 2008‟ (Partridge 2013: 400), who have disagreed with the Intervention. „The Intervention is a complex package of measures in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, concerning issues as diverse as land tenure, law, health, housing, education, employment, welfare payments‟ (Partridge 2013: 399). The Intervention continued under the administration of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who served from 2007 until 2010

(National Archives of Australia). Even though he made the „Apology‟ to the Indigenous people of Australia which was interpreted as the peak of reconciliation between the Indigenous people of Australia and the wider Australian public, no action to the policy was undertaken. Therefore, the Northern Territory Intervention was a governmental action, in which the domestic opposition was growing, due to the perceived damage being done to Aboriginal communities.

Several breaches relating to the intervention were made – among them: the contradiction inherent within the act of taking traditional property belonging to the Indigenous people of Australia, breaches related to the Native Title Act, welfare management making impact on the Indigenous people of Australia, and the ignoring of the cultural practices affecting the legislature procedure. Its legislation does not single out the safety of children at all (Richardson et al. 2008: 26). The person in charge of the creation and practice of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act, was the past minister, Mal Brough, and the Australian Defence Force was in charge of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act. The features of this „military‟ action only raised concern among local inhabitants and the Indigenous people of Australia, and invoked fear and feelings of being threatened. The intervention is compared to 'nothing less than a war zone in Australia' (Schokman et al. 2009: 97). Moreover, the Emergency Response legislation does not contain any indication of the situation of children at all. Because there was very low consent from and consultation with the Indigenous people of Australia, the Emergency Response is generally known more widely as an intervention (Richardson et al. 2008: 26). Referring to the five-year lease of land of the Indigenous people of Australia to the Commonwealth is discriminatory according to „Norman Fry, the Northern Land Council‟s Chief Executive‟ (Fawcett 2009:90). Moreover, Alice Springs and Darwin are among the main centres in the Northern Territory Most of the Aboriginal people, counting around 80 % lives outside of these towns. Physical conditions are harsh because of the local climate and basic services in which for instance schools are remote (Helmer et al. 2014: 37).

The per capita alcohol consumption of the Northern Territory, Australia, is second highest in the world, estimated 15.1 liters of pure alcohol per year. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Northern Territory consume approximately 16.9 liters of pure alcohol per year (Ramamoorthi et al. 2015: 1).

Alcohol abuse can be reflected in other areas of the lives of the Indigenous people of Australia and causes damage to the whole community. After the Labor government won its election in 2007, the „Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board‟ (Schokman et al. 2009: 80) was created, with the intention of providing precise independent information related to the Intervention. In their assessment, the government recognized that, in order to make any significant progress, the ability to abide by the Racial Discrimination Act was crucial. The responsibility to strive for equality and to not pursue racial discrimination is enlisted in several international documents including:

the United Nations Charter; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Schokman et al. 2009: 81).

In addition, the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was signed and ratified by Australia in 1975 with the Racial Discrimination Act (United Nations Treaty Collection 2015). The Racial Discrimination Act should be reconsidered alongside other acts such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the „Convention on the Rights of the Child‟‟ (Schokman et al. 2009: 83-84). These treaties, however, should not be in contradiction of the concept of racial discrimination. The goals of the Northern Territory Intervention Emergency were vaguely related to the wellbeing of the inhabitants in the Northern Territory. Consequently, comparison of any changes before and after intervention have been less feasible due to this vague articulation (Schokman et al. 2009: 86). The evidence of the results related to the Northern Territory Emergency Intervention suggests that „Intervention was imposed with haste, without consultation, in a top- down (manner) that has had the effect of disempowering communities and may have caused lasting cultural, social and emotional harm‟ (Schokman et al. 2009: 97). Hence, these practices have been similar to the former assimilation policies. Moreover, the Intervention has stimulated the effects of racism. Furthermore, one of the most significant changes that made negative impact is that „the Intervention attempts to change the behaviour of individual Aboriginal people while undermining social and cultural norms‟ (Schokman et al. 2009: 97). The long-term perspective of the situation of the Indigenous people of Australia has not been scrutinized in

order to really help them in the long-term. The Emergency Act does not pursue any activity that refers to the „Little children are Sacred‟. Rather, certain policies were presented and applied on communities of Indigenous people of Australia. The objectives of the Aboriginal group pointed at the following violation of the law:

The income management regime includes such discriminatory measures as the quarantining of 50 per cent of welfare payments of affected persons by the use of a Basics Card for the purchase of food and other essentials, and establishes a system of differential treatment between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people on the grounds of race in breach of article 5 of CERD (Newhouse 2009: 57).

Article 5 obliges state parties in for to the Convention to guarantee equality before the law and the equal enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and, fundamentally, freedom from racial discrimination, however, the measure applies almost exclusively to Aboriginal Australians (Newhouse 2009: 57).

Besides, the Australian government was placed in charge of the Aboriginal land, which turned out to be under a five-year lease to the Commonwealth. This practice is contradictory with the 1993 Native Title Act, which was ignored in the Emergency Act. These practices also violate the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which calls for „the government to protect individual and communal ownership of property and to protect against the deprivation of property rights on the basis of race‟ (Newhouse 2009:57). Another concern is the practice of the government to be in charge of Aboriginal organizations without the previous agreement of Indigenous Australians. These practices violate the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as well. Moreover, the objection of the Indigenous people of Australia against the practices of the Australian government is that racial discrimination is apparent because around 87 percent of the area where the intervention takes place.is inhabited by the Indigenous people of Australia. The intervention has provided ineffective results which is evidenced, for instance, by the occurrence of the double abuse on Aboriginal children in 2009 (Hemming 2010: 438). The Boomerang effect occurred because of the opposition of Aboriginal activists to the breaches of international treaties that the Australian government made as a result of the Intervention; activism largely took the form of reaching out to the international community, which drew a response that the Australian government wished to nullify.

In order for the Australian government to take action related to the Northern Territory Emergency Legislation and avoid contradicting their adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Act, the moratorium of the Racial Discrimination Act followed, with the explanation that their practices in relation to the Intervention were related to special measures (Schokman et al. 2009: 78). Thus, the Australian government tried to make the point that their measures were not related to the practice of racial discrimination, but to special measures. In order to fulfill the special measures, the following requirements are needed:

The measure is intended for the advancement of a racial group to be able to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms equally with others. The measure is for the sole purpose of securing the advancement of a certain group. The measure must be assured through consultation with the affected group. The measure must be temporary. Only if an action meets these four tests will article 1 (4) of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Racial Discrimination Act permit racial differentiation. The intervention measures would almost certainly fail the special measures test (Newhouse 2009: 57).

Hence, the response of the Australian government to international criticism was done in such a way that the Australian government did not have to make any changes and was able, on the surface, to justify its actions. Thus, in this instance, the power of the international community to put pressure on Australian government did not yield much of a result.

McIntyre (2007: 101) clarified the obligation under which the Australian government stood: „The human rights obligations of member states of the United Nations, such as Australia, have become a legitimate subject of international concern. The Commonwealth of Australia has an obligation as a member of the international community to take steps to implement international conventions.‟

If Australia had a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights, which protected rights of property and rights of self-determination, then that would provide an avenue for redress in the Australian courts. Without such constitutional provisions in Australia, the only avenue for individual redress is by way of a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee pursuant to the optional protocol applicable to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (McIntyre 2007: 113).

Aboriginal activism, movements and opposition against the Intervention formed its opposition by non-collaboration with many policies regarding the Intervention, for instance, the protests related to the „income quarantining and lease agreements‟ (Howard 2012: 237). Furthermore, in 2009, a few Aboriginal peoples living in the area of the Northern Territory Intervention placed an objection at „the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination‟ against the Emergency Response because of what they felt to be features of race discrimination that this action contained (Newhouse 2009: 56). The UN Committee is in charge of the observation of the practice of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Australia had ratified and adopted into the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act (Newhouse 2009: 56). The „United Nations Special Rapporteur, Professor James Anaya, expressed (the view) that the intervention was in contradiction of the Convention on Elimination on All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples‟ (McMullen 2011:31).

The Australian government's amendments to the Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 and the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing COAG 2009 clearly undermine Indigenous people‟s control over their lands. In response to the complaint, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination sent an Urgent Action Letter on 13 March 2009, calling upon the Australian Government to report in four months' time on the progress it has made to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act and to build a new relationship with Aborigines (Schokman et al. 2009: 79).

The United Nations Special Rapporteur stated his views, at the end of his stay in Australia, on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous people and particularly on the Northern Territory Emergency Response in 2009: „These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their rights of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities‟ (Calma 2010:1) and „ concerns arise from the racially based policies which required the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Racial Discrimination Act) and certain territory Laws‟ (Newhouse 2009:57). Even though the majority of Indigenous people of Australia do not agree with the Intervention, the government continues to ignore them (McMullen 2011:32). Moreover, the World Bank did not agree with the Intervention either, because they cannot find that it contributes to the positive development of Aboriginal communities (McMullen 2011:33). In the case of the amendment of the Wik Native Title Act in 56

1998, as well as in the case of the Intervention in 2007, the United Nations condemned the Australian government for their actions, which did not correspond with the International law that Australia signed and ratified in 2009. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples represents a significant measure for Indigenous Australians because it emphasizes the concept of self-determination for indigenous peoples. Even though Australia agreed to abide by the Declaration, the Intervention was triggered the same year, in 2007. Even though the intervention can be justified under the clause relating to the protection of women and children and their rights, the discriminatory practices undermine the government‟s policies and international treaties that the Australian government is committed to (Cowan 2013: 247). Even though the United Nations Committee‟s assessment is not confining, their reaction can cause embarrassment to the Australian government, resulting in damage to their international reputation.

To quote the former Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam in his speech "Human Rights For Aboriginal People in the 80s:‟more than any foreign aid program, more than any international obligation which we meet or forfeit, more than any part we may play in any treaty or agreement or alliance, Australia's treatment of her Aboriginal people will be the thing upon which the rest of the world will judge Australia and Australians (Newhouse 2009: 57).

Thus, even though the international community condemned the Australian intervention, the government still continues to practice its measures. However, some small concessions have been made in the light of the unpopularity of this measure and the Australian government has changed its approach slightly since the new policy – Stronger Futures – was passed in 2012.

This policy measure was introduced in 2011 and passed in 2012, and it represented new practices in relation to the Intervention under the administration of Prime Minister, Julia Gillard who served from 2010 until 2013 (National Archives of Australia). However, the new measure of, for instance, the Stronger Futures, related to the Welfare measure, was spread across the Northern Territory in order to remove discriminatory practices from the Intervention. Moreover, the Intervention has been extended until 2022 by Tony Abbott, who has been Prime Minister since 2013 (National Archives of Australia). The Intervention was created as a result of the many criticisms and recommendations of the Federal government‟s report relating to the implementation of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Northern Territory and the Northern

Territory Emergency legislation. However, the new policy still contains some of the previous measures of the Northern Territory Emergency legislation. Therefore, the discriminatory features still exist, in defiance of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples; „for indigenous peoples, self-determination is the mother of all Rights and that is the main inspiration behind the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples‟ … „by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development‟ (Cowan 2013: 256-260). Therefore, indigenous wellbeing has not been exercised in the Northern Territory Intervention and this has led to the formation of the Dodson principles. One of the changes that the new Stronger Futures policy presented in comparison to the previous policy – the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act – was its content; there was a lot of discontent with the lack of input from Indigenous representatives. Thus, the Aboriginal Peak Organizations NT‟ (Aboriginal Peak Organizations 2013: 25) was established. In this new network, Aboriginal peoples are included in collaboration with the government. Therefore, there is more involvement and consultation with Aboriginal Australians. As evidence of former such collaborative undertakings overseas, there are cases of government cooperation with Indigenous Americans in the United States, Canada and Alaska (Aboriginal Peak Organizations 2013: 25). It was confirmed that any approach, procedures and administration would be followed by success and indigenous development only by respecting and including Indigenous culture and international legislation related to it. Halloran (Vivian 2010: 4-5), as well as the „Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development in North America‟ (Vivian 2010: 4-5) pointed out that there is equivalence between cultural exclusion and problems with social, economic, cultural and health issues. The new policy, which was launched by the Gillard government, was condemned by activist organizations such as Amnesty International.

Amnesty International chief, Salil Shetty, commented on the intervention: I‟ve been to many places in bad shape in Africa, Asia and Latin America but what makes it stark here is when you remind yourself you‟re actually in one of the richest countries in the world (Chalk 2011: 45).

Even though the process of the Northern Territory Intervention is still raising concerns over its discriminatory practices, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues can serve as the platform to 58

raise the voice of Indigenous people ensure their status at the United Nations that can help with the fight for indigenous rights (Cowan 2013: 310). Some of the Aboriginal leaders who first agreed with the Emergency Act, changed their mind in the years after the Intervention started and raised their concerns regarding the discriminatory practices of the Intervention; one such critic was „Galamvuy Yunupingu, an Aboriginal leader, who described it as a form of apartheid‟ (Cowan 2013: 278). Even though the Intervention policy strategy has been changed to eliminate discriminatory practices by, for instance, the extension of the welfare management policy to areas across the Northern Territory, not just to those prescribed, these discriminatory practices still exist (Brennan 2011:). Thus, even though the domestic opposition reached the international community, who condemned the Australian government, the significant changes that would bring justice and wellbeing to Indigenous Aboriginal communities, have not been delivered by the Australian government so far.

To conclude, firstly, an explanation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act (better known as the Northern Territory Intervention), focusing on Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, was provided. Concerns were raised about the abuse of children in the Northern Territory. Therefore, the report, Little Children are Sacred, was issued in 2007. Consequently, the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act was passed in 2007; thus, the Intervention started in 2007. Secondly, breaches of international treaties by the Australian government and the consequences of the Intervention were examined. There was little or no consent between the Australian government and Aboriginal communities. No reference to children was made in the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act. It was shown in the cases of other indigenous peoples, for instance, in Canada or the United States, that indigenous development can be seen to be progressing as long as the obligation to follow the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination on all kinds of Discrimination is reached. In the case of the Australian government this meant following the Racial Discrimination Act. Thirdly, the Intervention was examined in relation to the special measures that were used as a justification by the Australian government; these „special measures‟ ignored the obligations within the Racial Discrimination Act. Fourthly, Aboriginal activism and the international condemnation of the Australian government in response to the Intervention is scrutinized. Because Australia does not

have a Bill of Rights, the only way to complain and seek help and support domestic opposition against the government is to seek support in the international community, and particularly the United Nations. A group of Aboriginal leaders thus presented the complaint about the Intervention to the United Nations in 2009. The United Nation Special Rapporteur condemned Australia for its breaches of international treaties such as CERD, CCPR, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia signed and ratified in 2009. Next, the response of the Australian government to criticism from the domestic opposition and the international community was presented. The Australian government reinstated the Racial Discrimination Act in 2010. The new policy – Stronger Futures – was presented in 2011. However, even though some changes were introduced, the policy still contains features that constitute a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other treaties. Despite criticism, the policy was passed in 2012 and has been practiced ever since.

Picture number 4.: Sequence of patterns of Boomerang effect regarding the Northern Territory Intervention:

5 Conclusion

All of the cases that have been presented and scrutinized in this thesis have been examining the validity of Boomerang effect. It was revealed that the Boomerang effect can have an impact that is able to cause the Australian government to change policy regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. However, the consistency of this impact has been open to debate, based on the scale of international pressure. One also needs to bear in mind the fact that Australian policy changes related to rights of the Indigenous people of Australia depends on who is in charge of Australian administration – that is, who is in government.

The 1965 Freedom Ride in Australia pursued civil rights for the Indigenous people of Australia. This initiative was inspired by the civil rights movement in the United States and the Freedom Ride in 1961 that happened in the Deep South of the United States. National as well as international media covered the Freedom Ride widely. The effect of the Freedom Ride in Australia was the embarrassment of the Australian government, domestically and internationally. Some international media compared the situation of the Indigenous people of Australia to the situation of segregation in the United States at that time. Domestic as well as some international pressure were significant factors responsible for governmental changes that followed in Australia regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. The Freedom Ride helped to create public awareness that led to the 1967 Referendum with more than ninety percent of „yes‟ votes from the wider Australian public. The 1967 Referendum led then to the changing of two articles in the Australian Constitution, thereby eliminating discrimination within the Australian constitution regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. The Freedom Ride is also attributed with creating the environment responsible for eliminating the White Australia Policy, which had existed since 1901 and which was eradicated completely in 1973.

The 1972 Aboriginal Tent Embassy has been a demonstration mainly of land rights – a unique way of protesting. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is supposed to represent a peak of resistance of Indigenous people in Australia. It has been raising consciousness about the Indigenous people of Australia not just domestically, but internationally as well. It was also covered in the international media in seventy-two countries. As the Tent Embassy is situated in front of the Parliament House, a lot of international politicians, invited by Australian government, have had 61

opportunity to meet with the protesters. Moreover, the Embassy has become one of the most popular tourist attractions in Canberra. Therefore, the question of embarrassment, internationally, became relevant for the Australian government, which feared for its reputation abroad; this was mainly on the part of the Liberal party before the Labour party won the election. The consequences of domestic and international pressure led to the creation of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975; thus, Australia was able to implement the Racial Act of 1966, which it had been signatory to, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1976, the Mabo decision of 1992, which annulled the principle of Terra Nullius, and the Native Title Act in 1993. The Embassy site was nationally recognized in 1995 and of Rudd‟s Apology to the Indigenous people of Australia took place in 2008. International pressure has played a very important role vis-a-vis the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, and this has had a ripple effect out into many other areas of activism and protest in pursuit of justice for Indigenous Australians.

On the other hand, the case of the Northern Territory Intervention is a complex case in which activism tried to stop the intervention as it does not comply to the international treaties which Australia is signatory to. The Australian government reacted to the report – Little Children are Sacred – related to child sexual abuse by passing the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act that was presented within a week after the report was made public in 2007. On the one hand, the Australian government reacted to the issue, as it is a signatory to international treaties related to the protection of the rights of women and children. However, the Emergency Act does not mention child sexual abuse at all, and the government acted in a way that is not in accordance with treaties such as the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, which was, significantly, suspended. The Australian government reacted to this case by invoking „special measures‟. No reports of child sexual abuse have been proved yet. No relevant consultation between the Australian government and the Indigenous people of Australia was present when the Intervention was applied. Even though the Stronger Futures initiative, which puts an emphasis on the cooperation of the Australian government and the Indigenous people of Australia, has been substituted for the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act, the discriminatory segments within the policy are still present under a different guise. The obligation of the Australian government to follow international treaties should not prioritize one while ignoring another. Widespread international criticism followed after the introduction of the Intervention. A group of Indigenous Australians

made a complaint to the United Nations in 2009, and the UN subsequently condemned Australia for the Intervention. However, the Intervention is about to continue under a different façade at least until 2022 according to the governmental plan. Therefore, this suggests that international influence and the Boomerang effect have been limited in relation to governmental decisions in Australia related to the Northern Territory Intervention.

Following the examination of these three cases, it can be concluded that the international Boomerang effect had a small effect on Australian response to the Indigenous people of Australia in the case of the Freedom Ride. The Boomerang effect played an important role in the Australian governmental response to the Indigenous people of Australia in the case of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. However, some of the policies that have been introduced after the Aboriginal Tent Embassy of 1972, such as the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, the 1976 and Rights Acts or the Native Title Act of 1993 were suspended or amended, which resulted in the loss of the benefit of rights for the Indigenous people of Australia. Additionally, the Boomerang effect played a limited role in the Australian response to the Indigenous people of Australia in the case of the Northern Territory Intervention.

Each of the examined cases have been similar because they have been related to the issue of the Indigenous people of Australia. However, each of the examined cases had different aims in terms of the associated activism. Moreover, the scale of international pressure was distinctive in each of the cases. It was low in the 1965 Freedom Ride and the Northern Territory Intervention, in comparison to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Each case has taken place at a different time, in which different governments and media have taken a role. The environment of human rights and the sensitivity to it has changed, as well, over time. Different channels have been activated in each examined case. The 1965 Freedom Ride activated the media mainly as a nonofficial channel between the international community and the Australia government. The media in the Aboriginal Tent Embassy played an important role as a nonofficial channel as well. Moreover, delegates from abroad, visiting the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, activated official channels. In the case of the Northern Territory Intervention, official channels were activated by the United Nations condemning the Australian government. Therefore, the greatest international pressure, using both official and nonofficial channels, took place in the case of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

Self-determination must be the concept that forms the basis of how the Indigenous people of Australia can determine their direction, their way of life – indeed, their destiny. In order to make that happen, several suggestions are presented that can help in that process, such as the concept of sovereignty and the ownership of the land, in other words, land rights. The Indigenous people of Australia can gain economic independence by finding niche industries that are in accordance with Indigenous values. Therefore, they can become more self-sufficient in the way they organize their lives. Consequently, they can empower their self-identity, their culture and their wellbeing based on healthy, physical, mental, personal and communal conditions. Equal rights, individual rights versus group rights, non-discrimination as well as the respect of difference are the key concepts that have been discussed amongst scholars regarding the Indigenous people of Australia. The attempt at Reconciliation, triggered in in Australia 2001, can be a useful process as long as voices are raised on both sides – those of the Indigenous people of Australia, as well as the wider Australian public – and cooperation and collaboration are seriously undertaken. In order to progress in this process, an examination of the legal structure of Australia, the traditional law of the Indigenous people of Australia and the compliance process with international treaties relating to the Indigenous people of Australia, could potentially enhance progress towards reconciliation. One of the stepping stones in this process could be the formal recognition of the Indigenous people of Australia in the form of treaties or in the Australian constitution, with explicit recognition of the Indigenous people of Australia, their equal rights as citizens, land rights, rights to self-determination as a principle recognized in international law, and bans on discrimination. All of these concepts should be in accordance with international law and treaties which Australia is signatory to. Education could be a key to better understand the truth and then change the status quo in the best possible way. The focus regarding recognition of the Indigenous people of Australia should be directed on the basis of equality, which can be reflected and realized in multispectral dimensions where individuals and groups are accepted and recognized as equal in their expression of their humanity.

Success of the Boomerang effect has been dependent on the scale of international pressure directed at Australia. In order to make a change regarding the Indigenous people of Australia, the knowledge of the Boomerang effect theory can be useful in this regard. Each of the examined variables has occupied a different position. The Australian government path is not clear.

However, the Indigenous people of Australia and their sympathizers, who know the path they want and are clear about their wishes for change regarding the situation of the rights of the Indigenous people of Australia, should try to reach out to the international community to ask for help, as the international community can put significant pressure on the government. The international community, which knows what they stand for, and who have shown they are willing to act regarding the Indigenous people of Australia, should try to put pressure on the Australian government by using, for instance, the international media and condemnation by international bodies. The international community should let the government know, in no uncertain terms, about the potential mental and material losses that the Australian government could experience if they do not abide with the international treaties to which Australia is signatory.

6 Bibliography

6.1 Primary sources: Australian Human Rights Commission. Available from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our- work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/projects/un-declaration-rights. [5 April 2015].

Australian Human Rights Commission. Available from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/what-universal-declaration-human-rights. [5 April 2015].

Australian Legal Information Institute. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/2004/73.html. [5 April 2015].

Call interview with Gary Binge. 23th April 2015. Australia.

Email response of Ann Curthoys. 15th April 2015.

Email response of Rex Wild. 22th April 2015.

Email response of Alastair Nicholson. 25th April 2015.

Email response of Julian Burnside. 1th May 2015.

Museum Victoria. Available from: http://museumvictoria.com.au/collections/themes/2835/indigenous-protest-1988-australian- bicentenary. [5 April 2015].

National Archives of Australia. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/. [5 April 2015].

National Archives of Australia. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/Holt/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://indigenousrights.net.au/organisations/pagination/federal_council_for_the_advancement_of _aborigines_and_torres_strait_islanders_fcaatsi. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/McMahon/. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/fraser/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/Hawke/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/keating/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/howard/in-office.aspx. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/rudd/. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/gillard/. [5 April 2015].

National Museum Australia 2007-2014. Available from: http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/abbott/. [5 April 2015].

Personal interview with Gary Foley. 9th April 2015, Melbourne, Australia.

Personal interview with Christopher Binge. 16th April 2015, Moree, Australia.

The University of British Columbia 2009. Available from: http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/ilo-convention- 107.html. [5 April 2015].

The United Nations. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml. [5 April 2015].

United Nations Treaty Collection 2015. Available from: . [5 April 2015].

United Nations Treaty Collection 2015. Available from: https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&lang=en&mtdsg_no=iv-3&src=treaty. [5 April 2015].

United Nations Treaty Collection 2015. Available from: . [5 April 2015].

6.2 Secondary sources: Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT 2013, Putting Aboriginal people back in the driver‟s seat: A post-intervention roadmap for the NT Corporate, Precedent, no. 118, pp. 24-28.

Alison, V 2010, Some human rights are worth more than others: the Northern Territory intervention and the Alice Springs town camps, vol. 35, no1, Alternative Law Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 13.

Blainey, G 1982, Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Aboriginal Australia, Macmillan, South Melbourne.

Brennan, F 2011, Interminable Intervention, The Meddling Priest, vol. 21, no. 325, pp. 46-48.

Calma, T 2010, The Northern Intervention: it‟s not our dream, Law in Context, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 14-41.

Chalk, A 2011, Love, the Northern Territory Intervention‟s missing ingredient, Politics Eureka Street, vol. 21, no. 2021, pp. 45-46.

Chesterman, J 2005, Civil Rights: how indigenous Australians won formal equality, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Clark, J 1998, „The wind of change in Australia: Aborigines and the International Politics of race 1960-1972‟, Taylor & Francis, Ltd., vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 89-117.

Costa, R 2006, A higher Authority: Indigenous transnationalism and Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Cowan, A 2013, Undrip and the intervention: indigenous self-determination,, participation, and racial discrimination in the northern in the Northern Territory of Australia, Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 247-310.

Curthoys, A 2012, Memory, History and Ego-Historie: Narrating and Re-enacting the Australian Freedom Ride, Historical Reflections, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 25-45. Read, P. 1988, Darce Cassidy‟s Freedom Ride, Australian Aboriginal Studies, no. 1. Pp. 45-53.

Curthoys, A & Marylin, L 2005, Connected Worlds History in Transnational Perspective, ANU E Press, Canberra. 69

Curthoys, A 2002, Freedom Ride: a freedom rider remembers, McPherson‟s Printing Group, Crows Nest.

Edmonds, P 2012, Unofficial apartheid, Convention and Country Towns: Reflection on Australian History and the New South Wales Freedom Rides of 1965, Postcolonial Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167-190.

Fawcett, B 2009, Child sexual abuse and Aboriginal communities in Australia: A case study of non-inclusive government intervention, European Journal of Social Work, vol. 12, no. 1, European Journal of Social Work, pp. 87-100.

Foley, G 2012, „ A short history of the Australian Indigenous Resistance 1950-1990‟ in Allison Cadzow, John Maynard and Larissa Behrent, Nelson Aboriginal Studies, pp. 1-29.

Foley, G, Schaap A & Howell, E 2014, The aboriginal tent embassy: sovereignty, black power, land rights and the state, Oxon Routledge, Abingdon.

Gilbert, E 2000, Fire creator for justice is awoken [The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is under constant threat of removal, Balayi: Culture, Law and Colonialism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 77-96.

Gooda, M 2011, „Practical power of human rights: how international human rights standards can inform archival and record keeping practices‟, Springer Netherlands, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141-150.

Harris, M 2003, Mapping Australian Postcolonial Landscapes: From Resistance to Reconciliation?, Law Text Culture, Vol. 7, pp. 71-97.

Helmer, J, Harper, HLT, Wolgemuth, JR & Chalkiti, K 2014, Challenges of conducting systematic research in Australia‟s Northern Territory, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 21, no 20, pp. 36-48.

Hemming, A 2010, Northern Territory national emergency response revisited, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 438-463.

Howard, W D, 2012, Reclaiming the northern territory as a settler-colonial space, Arena Journal, no. 37/38, pp. 220-240.

Keck M E & Sikkink, K 1988, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press.

Levi, N 2007, „No sensible comparison: the place of the holocaust in Australia‟s history wars‟, Indiana University Press, vol. 19, no.1, pp. 124-156.

Lothian, K. 2007, „Moving Blackwards: Black Power and the Aboriginal Embassy‟, in Ingereth Macfarlane and Mark Hannah (eds), Transgressions: critical Australian Indigenous histories, ACT: ANU E-Press, pp. 19-34.

Lothian, K 2005, „Seizing the Time: Australian Aborigines and the Influence of the Black Panther Party 1969-1972‟, Journal of Black Studies, vol. 35 no. 4, pp. 179-200.

Maynard, J 2007, Fight for Liberty and Freedom: The origins of Australian Aboriginal activism, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

McMullen, J 2011, Correspondence on the intervention, Arena Magazine, no. 111, pp.31-35.

McIntyre, G 2007, An Imbalance of Constitutional Power and Human Rights: The 2007 Federal Intervention in the Northern Territory, James Cook University Law Review, vol. 14, pp. 81-113.

Miller, R J 2011, The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis‟, SYMPOSIUM The Future of International Law in Indigenous Affairs: The Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 847- 922.

Muldoon, P & Schaap, A 2012, Aboriginal sovereignty and the politics of reconciliation: the constituent power of the Aboriginal Embassy in Australia, Environment & planning D, society & space, 2012, vol.30, no.3, p.534-550.

Newhouse, G & Ghezelbash, D, Calling the Northern Territory intervention law to account, Law Society Journal, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 56-59.

O‟Connor, G 2005, The End of Ignorance: The Impact of the 1965 Freedom Ride on Australian Society: Winner of the Year 12 Modern History Teachers‟ Association Historical Writing Competition, History Teacher, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 5-9.

Partridge, E 2013, Caught in the Same Frame? The Language of Evidence-based Policy in Debates about the Australian Government „Intervention‟ into Northern Territory Aboriginal Communities, Australia Social Policy & Administration, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 399-415.

Ramamoorthi, R, Jayaraj, R, Notaras, L, Thomas, M 2015, Epidemiology, Etiology, and Motivation of Alcohol Misuse Among Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders of the Northern Territory: A Descriptive Review, Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-11.

Richardson, FW 2008, Top End turn-around, Independent Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 25-26.

Risse, T K, Ropp, C S & Sikkink, K 2004, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Smithers, G. D. 2008, „Black gentleman as good as white: a comparative analysis of African American and Australian Aboriginal political protests 1830-1865‟, The Journal of African American history, vol. 93 no. 3, pp. 315-336.

State Library of Queensland 2014. Available from: . [5 April 2015].

Tongs, J & Poroch, N 2014, Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service 1988-2014: breaking barriers in Aboriginal research and services, Australian Aboriginal Studies, vol. 2014, no. 2, pp94-100.

Vivian, A 2009, The Northern Territory Intervention and the Fabrication of Special measures, Australian Indigenous Law Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 78-106.

Watson, I 2000, Aboriginal Tent Embassy: 28 years after it was established, Indigenous Law Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 17-18.

Appendices:

6.3 Thoughts from a phone interview with Gary Binge. 1) What was the international communities influence in the case of Freedom Ride?

There was international influence from Freedom Ride 1961 who started in Deep South America. During that time human rights were taking off all over the world.

2) How did that effect the interaction between the Indigenous people of Australia and the government of Australia?

Charles Perkins has been involved in government after Freedom Ride took place. He served in several positions.

3) How can activism of the Indigenous people of Australia be performed better now and in the future based on past experiences?

Learning from history. Let the truth be known through education. History of Genocide of the Indigenous people of Australia – be a part of educational system.

4) Has there been progress?

Little policy has changed. White policy has protected themselves from the Indigenous people of Australia. The way of life of the Indigenous people of Australia has not infiltrated into white Australian culture at all. However, Moree‟s new mayor is planning to apologize to the Indigenous people of Australia.

Gary Binge was going to talk to mining companies about rights of the Indigenous people of Australia in Adelaide next week after call interview was made on 23th April 2015.

Gary Binge - one of the first Indigenous people of Australia allowed to go to the swimming pool in Moree along with Charles Perkins in 1965 thanks to Freedom Ride.

6.4 Email responses on my questions:

1) What was the international communities influence in the case of Freedom Ride, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the Northern Territory Intervention?

2) How did that effect the interaction between the Indigenous people of Australia and the government of Australia?

3) How can development of the Indigenous people of Australia be performed better now and in the future based on past experience?

Dear Alena

Thank you for your letter.

On the question of international influence on the Freedom Ride, I discuss this at some length in my book, Freedom Ride: A Freedom Rider remembers, published by Allen and Unwin. Re the Tent Embassy, see the recent book edited by Andrew Schaap and Gary Foley on the Tent Embassy, I think it would have the most up to date discussion. Re the Intervention, I am unsure, but look for work by Jon Altmann and Melinda Hinkson.

As I argue in the book, I think international influence played a significant role in relations between Aboriginal people and government through the 1960s, before during and after the Freedom Ride. I think the same is likely to be true of the Tent Embassy as well, but really don't know enough to comment in the case of the Intervention.

I wish you all the best in your studies,

Participant of the 1965 Freedom Ride

Ann Curthoys

Dear Alena,

Thank you for your email. I cannot answer, easily, your three questions. Each one, itself, justifies a doctoral (not a master's) thesis. Much has already been said and spoken about these issues. You will be familiar with the UN Special Rapporteur's examination of some of these matters in recent years. The questions remain very current in Australia.

Your research will show that Pat Anderson and I wrote jointly the "Little Children are Sacred" report, published in June 2007. There is much in that on the issues you enquire about. I commend it to you.

I have made many speeches on the topic since then. I have found some of those still on my database and will forward one or two of them to you electronically shortly.

Good luck with your writing!

Co-author of the Little Children Are Sacred report

Rex Wild

Dear Alena

Thank you for your email. Your questions NT Intervention you may care to look at “Loss of Rights - the despair of Aboriginal communities in the Northern territory. A submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination- Australia - prepared by The Hon Alastair Nicholson, Michele Harris and Georgia .” It can be accessed on territorystories.nt.gov.au citing http://hdl.handle.net/10070/2522531.

As to your first question, I do not believe that there was a great influence from the international community on the Freedom ride and the Aboriginal Tent save that Aboriginal leaders have for many years been in contact with other Indigenous peoples and have developed ideas based upon those consultations. They also have had close involvement in the preparation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is reasonably probable that the concept of the Freedom Ride came from the US as a result of the Black Power movement there which involved similar activities.

The Intervention was an Australian Government response to a particular situation alleging child abuse in Aboriginal communities, none of which were ever proved. It was a completely unjustified response that did enormous damage to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and attracted broad international condemnation. Despite this the Rudd Government which succeeded the Howard Government that introduced it continued with it and its ill effects are still being experienced today. This suggests that international pressure has had little effect upon the respective Governments involved.

Your second question is best answered by saying that the Aboriginal people were and are in despair following the Intervention and the lack of effect that international pressure has had on the Government‟s actions.

I have no real answer to your third question but I wish that I did. I have been involved in attempting to support the Aboriginal people for many years and I can only say that we and they are at the beginning of a long process to achieve proper recognition. 76

For further information about my and others involvement in the process I suggest that you look at the website concernedaustralians.com.au and click on publications for a list of relevant publications available on the site which can be downloaded.

I hope that these answers have been of assistance.

Kind Regards

Former Chief Justice of the Family Court

Alastair Nicholson

Dear Alena,

Thank you for your email. I hope you have enjoyed your time in Australia.

I do not pretend that this is a comprehensive answer (certainly not sufficient to answer your thesis question) but I will provide a few thoughts on the following questions.

1) What was the international communities influence in the case of Freedom Ride, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy and the Northern Territory Intervention?

Australia has a rocky history regarding its treatment of Indigenous Australians. The disparity in life expectancy, employment, the incarceration rates and access to medical treatment (to name a few measures) highlight the injustice of the past, and the challenge of „closing the gap‟. The three events that you name are important parts of Australia‟s indigenous history. I think that Freedom Ride and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy are examples of grass roots action rather than a response to international pressure.

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy appears to be an example of self-determination by indigenous people, rather than a product of international intervention. Although the Aboriginal Tent Embassy did receive wide media coverage in Australia and internationally, it was not this international influence that acted as a catalyst. The event itself seems to be an example of Indigenous Australians standing up for themselves and fighting for justice. On the 26th January 2012 Australia celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Michael Anderson (one of the original protestors) stresses the significance of the tent embassy when he said, 'it can be regarded as the longest running political demonstration in the world‟ and also stated that it is very important that this Aboriginal Tent Embassy continues until all our people are out of poverty and have achieved self-determination. The fact that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy remains today, and is heritage listed, demonstrates how powerful this protest was as a symbol of Indigenous freedom and self-determination.

The Freedom Rides were similarly sparked by public unease and concern about the inequality and discrimination towards indigenous people. Although the Freedom Rides were inspired by the Freedom Riders of the American Civil Rights Movement, I am not sure that this amounted to international influence. The American Freedom Riders may have contributed to a growing awareness among the public about injustice within Australian society, but the actual Rides seem to be a grass roots movement. During the Freedom Rides, footage was captured highlighting that racism and discrimination towards Indigenous people was endemic throughout Australia. For example, the vice-president of the Walgett Returned Service League Club said that he would never allow an Aborigine to become a member. The Freedom Rides played a crucial role in creating awareness within the public about the poverty and discrimination faced by Indigenous Australians.

I do think that the 2007 Northern Territory Intervention may have been influenced by international pressure, more so than either the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, or the Freedom Rides. Given that the Intervention was introduced in the lead up to the 2007 election it is likely that international and domestic pressures influenced the decision to rush though the policy. Furthermore the NT intervention could have been influenced by Australia‟s international obligations. For example, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission welcomed the Australian Government‟s announcements to act to protect the rights of Indigenous women and children in the Northern Territory through the NT Intervention. As the Commission stressed; protecting these communities was consistent with Australia‟s international human rights obligations, particularly with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

You may consider looking at how some other countries have achieved policy reform regarding their indigenous communities, for example, the Native Americans of Central America or the First Peoples of Canada. These case studies could assist in comparing how the international community influences domestic policy.

2) How did that effect the interaction between the Aboriginal people and the government of Australia?

I am not sure how significant international influence was in sparking the incidents you mentioned. Nevertheless, these historical events have contributed to shaping the relationship between Indigenous people and the government. Protests and awareness campaigns such as the Tent Embassy and Freedom Rides paved the way for significant law reform and a change in public attitude. Law reforms such as the 1967 referendum, and the introduction of native title, have been positive steps in the relationship between the Australian government and indigenous communities.

3) How can Aboriginal development be performed better now and in the future based on past experience?

This is a very difficult question and has been discussed by many great minds. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area so can only suggest some areas you could look at. You could have a look at Kevin Rudd‟s apology to the stolen generation in 2008; the apology is perhaps an example of a general move towards collaborative and consultative community development. I also suggest you have a look at the Forrest Review – Indigenous Jobs and Training Review. While I do not necessarily agree with everything in the report, it is a recent example of current approaches to Indigenous welfare policy. It would be up to you to consider whether this review has learnt from mistakes of the past and the efficacy of the suggestions. I have attached a link to the review. https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/The_Forrest_Revie w.pdf

I wish you the best with your studies,

Very best wishes

Human Rights Advocate

Julian Burnside

6.5 Personal interview with Gary Foley, academic, writer, one of the most prominent indigenous activists and participant of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in 1972.

Q: What was the international influence in activism for indigenous rights in Australia in the 1965 Freedom Ride and what were the results? A: The only connection there is that students in Sydney University adopted and adapted an idea from American Civil Rights Movement. Q: Was there any international pressure on Australian government in this case? A: The only international pressure on Australian government was embarrassment. And they have been quite happy to be embarrassed.

Q: What was the international influence in activism for indigenous rights in Australia in the Aboriginal Tent Embassy and what were the results? Again only in terms of embarrassment for the Australian government because of massive amount of publicity. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy got more international media coverage than any other single action of twentieth century. But none of that had any effect on the Australian government itself. There was tremendous media attention from seventy-two different countries. Media organizations, newspapers, who covered events between January-July 1972 and so in that sense the Embassy was seemed to be an effective protest in terms of making the world aware of struggle of land rights in Australia. But in terms of that translating into any sort of action internationally very little, I think. Russian embassy, Soviet embassy at that time were interested. Diplomats came down to visit embassy. Probably the most significant thing, internationally that came down from Embassy, was Chinese government inviting Deputation lead by Chicka Dixon in 1972 to visit China before China was really open to the West. So that was a significant thing. Because Chicka Dixon led the deputation to China before Australia had diplomatic relations. And Australia was one of the first countries in the West to establish diplomatic relations with China. So the Chinese government was very interested and prepared to embarrass Australian government by inviting us over there. But in terms of any practical assistance none was really asked for and none was given apart from Chinese government sponsoring those deputations.

Q: So according to you Australian government did not fear of its reputation with the international communities? A: There were two different governments at that time of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. There was a conservative government, liberal government which was in power at that

time when Chinese government invited the deputation. But by the time Chicka Dixon deputation went to China, there was a new government, Labor government, first time in decades. So the conservative Liberal government was paranoid of Aboriginal people having connections with China. But the Whitlam government was less concerned, because the Labor government was the government that moved to establish diplomatic relationship with China. So the situation is slightly complicated in terms of Australian government reaction. The government that was at the beginning in 1972 was probably paranoid about associations with us and what they called Chinese communists. But the Labor government at the end of 1972 was not really concerned and Whitlam have promised in terms of Aboriginal people land right act and it was not two years later when he reneged on that promise that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy went up and Whitlam was seemed to be typical dishonest politician.

Q: What was the effect between the connection of Chinese and the Indigenous people of Australia? A: Nothing really came out of it. When I led second deputation in China in the end of 1973, and Chinese has only opened the embassy in Canberra. They were more interested in developing relationships with the West than they were in supporting in their own life. Which was not really worrying aspect. We have been pleased that they even invited us. There were two deputations to inform them what was happening with us in Australia. But in the long-term, nothing really came out of it. Because they have been effectively cut themselves off from the West since 1949 and Australian government was the first western government really apart from Canada maybe who were prepared to consider diplomatic relations in terms of the circumstances either. We are talking very much about McCarthyism, any communist nonsense, going on at that point. By the time, Whitlam became Prime Minister, Chinese government became from less interested in what was happening with us and more of using Whitlam government as a main source of using further extending relations with the West. That was not worrying aspect because we were aware of what was going on. And those were disadvantages with China at that point anyway. China was still impoverished country then. And they were more preoccupied billion people which they were barely able to take care of it at that point in history. The only effect of Chinese trips was that some of us individuals developed good relations with Chinese people but politically nothing came out of it for Aboriginal people. We were interested in commune system in China because we saw that as a more compatible organizations way of organizing

communities than any capitalist model of communities. We rejected the idea that Aboriginal people gaining economic independence through managerial and entrepreneurial elite. To me, this is complete contradiction with basic Aboriginal values. We saw the basic socialist values of Chinese communist party as being much more compatible with the Aboriginal way of doing things because we believe in values of Aboriginal things in more socialist than capitalistic way. So we were interested in what they were doing over there. In fact, we came back with some good ideas, about how if we were to gain land rights and how our communities organize in sort of way. The key thing we are registered in was developing economic independence because we saw that as the only thing we will be able to attain self-determination, determinate our destiny, and I still think that to this day.

Q: Did Chinese inspiration led to free legal and medical Aboriginal service? A: No, these ideas came from Black Panther Party in America. All of the free Aboriginal free service, medical services and breakfast program in Sydney All of these ideas were adapted from California where the Panther Party, African-American communities situated in San Francisco. They were ideas that were stolen directly from them. Ideas that we adopted to our situation.

Q: According to you, was there any international influence in terms of Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Land Right Act, 1976, Mabo decision 1992, Native title 1993 and Apology 2008 that were triggered by Aboriginal Tent Embassy? A: You are talking about a range of incredibly different things. Anti-discrimination Act, I do not know what international influence was there, is a waste of time. Northern Territory Land Rights Act is the only good piece of land rights act implemented in Australia, but applied only to a tiny Aboriginal people in certain parts of Northern Territory. And the reason was that Whitlam was too cowardly to as a prime minister to force implementation of the same Act on the international level because he was terrified of the state premiers who would resist that, Western Australia and especially Queensland. In the end, Whitlam lasted only for three years as a Prime Minister anyway. He was forced out of office. Before, he had a chance to do most much in terms of most of the reforms that he run to do. So Northern Territory Land Rights Act is the only Land right act that Aboriginal people of Australia gained proper ownership of land. Native title land is one of the most perpetrated acts in Australian history. Most Australians think that Native title act gave land rights to Aboriginal people which is absolute lie. Native title is disgrace. It should be repealed, thrown out because it

gave Aboriginal people nothing whatsoever. Because under the Native title you do not own this place, no ownership. Native title is meaningless. Native title is the most inferior British law. It is completely meaningless. It is not ownership at all. Me: But it rejected Terra Nullius principles. Gary: I'd rather have Terra Nullius than Native Title. Because it means the same thing. What is the difference between Terra Nullius and Native Title? Nothing. Terra Nullius means we do not have a land. Native title means we do not have a land. The only thing that Native title does it creates the illusion that to think that Native title have some sort of ownership of land that have not. Native title did not give Aborigines anything. Native title was about conforming white ownership of land in Australia after Mabo decision. Mabo decision itself is completely flawed. Mabo decision does not relate to Aboriginal people. It is about Melanesians. Torres Strait Islanders are not Aborigines, they are Melanesians. Their culture is similar to what yours is. No, there is no similarity. But there was so much paranoia generated by fear campaign created after Mabo decision. Federal government, Paul McCarthy, Labor government, felt that they needed to confirm white Australian property rights and hence that Native title was created. And that is why it does not give Aboriginal people any ownership whatsoever. Yet, too many Aboriginal people and most Australians somehow Native title gave Aboriginal people something. It gave us nothing. Me: Nothing at all, even on a small scale? No, I mean if it does not give you ownership land, than it is not land rights. My mantra.

Q: Was there any international community influence in the case of the Northern Territory intervention? A: What was the international response. It is the United Nations Bureaucratic system? I mean the United Nations is complete waste of space. It is one of the biggest bureacracies in the world. If the United Nations had any integrity in terms of its dealings in Australia, they should have send peacekeeping force to Australia years ago and peacekeeping corps and sort ownerships out in Australia. The United Nations has done anything for Aboriginal people ever. Made a few statements, big deal. What a good statements. Statements are not worth paper written off. The United Nations are interested in maintaining their own sort of illusion of power internationally. Look at the present Australian government. They hold the United Nations in contempt. And when the United Nations accuses abuses the rights of refugees, so what good is the United Nations. If offending government breach United Nations international conventions and the United Nations does not do anything about that. What is the point of the United Nations.

Me: Well, I have read that Australia feared of embargo during the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Gary: There was never a chance of embargo ever, never. Australian government, in 1972, not since, Australian government does not care since. For brief period in 1972, the conservative government was concerned of international image, reputation. Today, Australian government could not care less. Why would they do what they do to refugees and not care of international community. Australian government do not care of its own breaching of human rights international conventions that are signatories too. And if Australian government choose to ignore at its obligations that is signatories to, how are those obligations worth anything, they are worthless. They are meaningless. Further evidence of impotence of the United Nations in terms of Australian conservations. In fact, I would argue that the United Nations is bigger problem than Australian government. Because they pretend to be our friend and they do nothing. Australian government is at least honest, it hates us, it treaties like it hurts us. And therefore there is more honest than the United Nations is dealing with us.

Me: But for instance, with European Union, Australian government did not sign human rights clause and results was that they do not have that much good policy with European Union. Gary: Australia do have trade with European Union a little. Australia has most trade with China and the United States. Nobody cares about European Union. The thing about the Northern Territory intervention and Racial Discrimination Act is that when Australian government could suspend certain provisions on Racial Discrimination Act, to enable itself to discriminate it against its people, what sort of legislation is that. When Racial Discrimination Act has done anything to protect Aboriginal people? Me: Australian government justifies its action as the special measurement. Gary: Yes, if you have a Racial Discrimination Act and that act and certain provisions within that act are able to be suspended to suit whatever government is in power, how is that that effective and meaningful piece of legislation that is designated to protect people in human rights. It is not. It is completely worthless document. It is a waste of time.

Me: Australian government did change its policy regarding Northern Territory Intervention to Stronger Futures. Gary: It is purely cosmetic meaningless change. That it was able to suspend the act in the first place shows how meaningless the act is because the government was embarrassed further down the act and thought of it, it is a bit contradiction of what you are doing because people starting criticizing government within Australia, so they make few cosmetic changes. Still

did not get rid of the Northern Territory intervention. Racist Australian government which all Australian government is racist, Labor is worse than Liberal, when you got intervention that people, who claim to be socially progressive, Labor party, are even more racist than the conservative who people traditionally think of more racist. And I have said on numerous occasions within last few years that in fifty year time, it will be all over. Genocide will be complete. There will be no Aboriginal people. End of story, end of problem.

Q: What do you think, the Indigenous people of Australia and their sympathizers could do, how can they protest? Can they find support in international community? A: International community is not interested. International community are focused on own problems in other parts of world. We are too far away from the rest of the world. There are individual people and small communities of people in other countries around the world who might be interested in concern, but they are not the governance. And governance do not care. Indigenous people itself are excluded from being regarding as nations state within of concept of the United Nations. The United Nations is a club from which Australia, in Canada, in the United States, New Zealand are. Indigenous people are excluded from that club. And that club does not care what happens to us. We are not the United Nations. We do not have resources, we do not have armies. Those people that internationally do care are variably in small groups of people. Good. Honest. But they are not governance. They do not represent governance. Governance do not care, people do. But people have not power.

Q: I have heard few months ago that China was condemning Australia of abusing human rights. A: China plays its own game. When it does that is completely meaningless to us because it has more to do with geo-global-political games that plays by the Nation States. Chinese government is not the government that invited us forty years ago. China is now capitalist player of the game. China now is not China that I visited forty years ago. So any expression like the Chines government or Australian government only now, is to do with the game that play over to extract Australian resources over benefits of Chinese capitalist class. So I would not consider that that is not valid any expression of combination from Chinese government today. That is not valid expression of support of Aboriginal people political struggle.

Q: Is there a lot of social media awareness? Do protesters for the rights of the Indigenous people of Australia use a lot of social media to raise awareness among people who care? A: It is a 86

pointless in a long-term. The process toward assimilation is so far progressed that it is an inevitability that not in forty, fifty years there will be no Aboriginal people. Genocide will be complete. There will be few brown people called themselves Aboriginal. But they will be no Aboriginal people. They will be assimilated, like brown people.

Q: Do you have any recommendations what can be done in terms of activism for the Indigenous people of Australia? A: I got nothing to offer. Nothing to say to young Aboriginal activists. They have to do their own analysis of what is happening in Australia today and they need to develop their own tactics and strategies that see if they can impede or slow down the inevitable process that is leading towards out of traction. I do not believe we can stop inevitable, but that is not for me to says that. In the same way my generation rejected that tactics and strategies of the older generation when I was young so too must the young generation today. Why they should listen to me. The ideas and strategies have clearly failed the same way as I thought the strategies of my older generation failed. We failed. In fact, every generation of Aboriginal people since the invasion have failed. Every significant Aboriginal leader since 1778 has died of knowing that their life of resistance has achieved absolutely nothing. Six months before I was born in 1950, Bill Ferguson, Aboriginal leader in New South Wales died because knowing nine months leading to death that all of the incredible work that he done, for his entire lifetime, have come to nothing. But he is not the only one. Like I said every generation of Aboriginal leader‟s resistance has died of knowing that all that they did came to nothing. And I will die the same way. And every Aboriginal people who thinks that I am wrong is wrong. They will find out when they die. They will die knowing that all of their work achieved nothing. That forces that will up against, were so powerful that overwhelming and I says as somebody as a part of generation who achieved greatest victories of the twentieth century. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was the highpoint, was the peak of the Aboriginal resistance. And what comes of that, nothing. It is still there. It is a depressing story, isn't it?

Q: What the Indigenous people of Australia want? A: It is a basic set of demands. If we are to survive into the future. First, and foremost, we must have self-determination. It is going to be us who determine where we will be tomorrow. But nobody can have genuine self-determination without economic independence. And how do you achieve economic independence in the situation where you are dispossessed, land-less refugees in their own country. The first, and

foremost prerequisite for the path towards economic independence is that you need land. Not Native title, not interest in land. You need ownership of land because if you use the land and forget all the nonsense people talk about spiritual tights of land. I am not interested in spiritual tights, I am interested in land as economic base which can be used to generate economic entrepreneuses which are not in conflict with basic Aboriginal cultural values. Economic entrepreneuses which generate income for communities which enables communities to build towards economic self-sufficiency. Then, only then we can genuinely determine our own destiny, our own self-determination. So you need land, and draw on the example. If we have land rights tomorrow, I will be looking at some of the examples in China, but also Australia is a big place. There is a multitude different circumstances that peoples in communities live in. And you have to look at each individual area, community and do economic modeling that is going to be sort of economic enterprises in any given region. Like where I come from, there is scope for fishing industry. We have been fishing for five thousand years. Generate income, generate employment. There is a scope for Aboriginal people to be involved in tourism industry. It is a question of people doing feasibility studies specific to each region of Australia. Pears advocates system when managerial people earn more money. That is not Aboriginal way of model. That is why Chinese model was appeal to me, was better model which upon to work. Everybody is equal. And avoids the voids of animal farms.

Additional speech of Gary Foley: In terms of Freedom Ride, there was international influence. It is clear that, and I am not sure if it was Charles Perkins ideas, because Charles was just university student and I do not think, Charles was smart enough to develop Afro-American Freedom Rides ideas while he was here. He was, I would think of that he was black front man, but what Freedom Ride did, was taken ideas from international concept, especially from American concept in 1960s, and adopted and adapted that idea to Australian environment and became very effective exercise raising people consciousness. Freedom Ride did embarrass Australian government internationally. But most importantly, it made Australian people more aware and conscious what was happening in Australia. Freedom Ride did help to bring back consciousness in Australia that led to results in Referendum 1967. Because when you think about that the Referendum 1967, at that moment in Australian history, you had enormous reservoir good will towards Aboriginal people to the path, ordinary Australian people in excessive ninety

percent Australian people said yes to possession to 1967 Referendum that they understood do you believe for justice for Aboriginal people or not. Things have changed so dramatically since 1967 that today you would get different results that eighty to ninety percent of people would vote no in many question related to Aboriginal people.

Q: Why? A: Because it is what happened ever since Australian government have contributed in their own way to racial hatred that exist today. Australia is much more racist today than it was when I grew up. It is much more intolerant, much more hatred, much more selfish place.

Q: If Freedom Ride happens today on a huge scale you do not think it would lead to raising awareness? A: No, there is not a chance. Pauline Hanson gave Australia permission to be racist. That attitude was strongly encouraged throughout whole period of the Howard government from the late 1980s to today. Australians now feel comfortable to be racist, and the anti-Aboriginal sentiment community is probably eighty to ninety percent to 1967. Australia has politically drifted anyway in forty years. If you look at media today, even A.B.C, which was reconstructed during Howard government which pointed out on right-wing lunatics to be on the board of the A.B.C. Even people who call themselves left-wing, today pretend they are right or seem to be right or to be middle of the centre in order to survive working at A.B.C. A.B.C used to be best progressive liberal opinion. Not anymore. And when A.B.C shifted to the right, all of the Australian media, especially Murdoch press, which operates all of the Australian newspapers in this country. In the late 1960s, 1972, Murdoch was left wing, not anymore. When you consider Australian ownership of media where is most limited in Western world. Virtually, all of the media are right-wing Murdoch. How is that healthy for society. It is not. And when you consider how extreme right wing Murdoch media is, that is explanation why Australia is so racist today. But here in Australia, people talk about him as a hero. That is why we will end up, there is no way for Aboriginal people.

Q: Even raising awareness on social media? A: Social media is the only way. But even that look at Facebook in Australia in a last week or so, those racists who protests at Federation Square the other day, they significantly represented on Facebook, and political right in Australia is becoming better organized on social media and so in many ways Aboriginal voices are and will remain in world mess. Even though it appears I have five thousand friends on Facebook, and you can be easily flawed into the flawed security thing of everybody thinks like me but that is not the 89

case. And as I said the right is get erected together and given that there are so many people who are right-wing racist in Australia, inevitably in some point in the future, they will be the dominant force on social media as in the mainstream media.

6.6 Personal interview with Christopher Binge, centre manager of Dhiiyaan Aboriginal Centre in Moree.

Q: What was the international community influence on the 1965 Freedom Ride? A: From my knowledge of Freedom Ride, international influence as such, has pertained to rights within the Aboriginal people in their country. There was human rights, part of basic human rights, and I am aware that not just the students but particularly Charles Perkins had contact with Human Rights Commission and the rights of people in their country and what they were subjected to and obviously, this was back in 1965, fifty years ago. We are talking about long period of time, where not just students at that time, but Charles Perkins put themselves in front of major issue within this country. Laws at that time were being viewed as apartheid in South Africa, and with the relations that were in law with African people and laws that were in place in this country were very similar in relation in I suppose in South Africa. So for us it is Charles Perkins and students who caught the international attention given the fact that they were going to communities that there were some apartheid laws in relation to Aboriginal people where they could go. Moree facilities were run by Moree council and there were other laws at that time. Aboriginal people could not go to in this town like pubs, clubs et cetera. From human rights perspective, I think that and also from international perspective that our laws, not just for Aboriginal but indigenous people in these countries, were being challenged. In that respect, Charles and their student at that time put themselves in pretty high risk in these communities and basically take on not just these communities were taken all government that were equal rights for Aboriginal people not just participating in common practice in these communities but also as the rights to participants as citizens in this country we call Australia. I think that support that Charles received in Australia, was challenging government, policy, people that were in policies, procedures in what happens in different parts of the country, around indigenous rights and responsibilities and where we see ourselves as people. Being mindful. I think it was in 1969, where we could vote, it was four years before this decision was made. It was challenging. It was I think really benchmark for Aboriginal of Australia. History shows that Charles had a support of international countries what he wanted to do. If you look at the Freedom Ride, particularly from the American perspective, it actually had a same Charter of freedom rights in America which was the same African-American people basic rights. 91

Q: Was there public, government as well as international attention? A: Definitely. History of this event and what was happening at that time was getting world attention. These people have forged the rights. We did not have control over what happened outside Australia but what occurred did happened was influential in relation to where we are today. From international perspective, Charles and the group had a support from many people from many countries. Forged the paths their forged. Yes, we have come along way since but we still have a long way to go.

Q: Did that international support help? A: Definitely. International support helped the process Charles and students were involved in. Students that were on the bus were not even from Australia, they were international students combined with some students that were from Australia. The support they got from the United Nations, I think, they were very supportive. Laws did not justify what was happening in the country for Aboriginal people at that time. And that comes back for basic rights for Aboriginal people. Particularly First Nations people too at the same level as Non-Indigenous people. Animals are given probably more rights than what Aboriginal people do. History will define how important Freedom Ride was for us as Aboriginal people.

Q: Was there any direct international influence on government, what were the results? A: There were some clear ground forged that what happened to Freedom Ride in arrange to whole range of other areas. Charles was definitely driver of that time combined with other people at that time in the country like minded Aboriginal people and non-minded Aboriginal people forged the way in relation to policy changes in government. Some of the games that were imposed Freedom Ride from the political point of view have been huge but as I said earlier we still have a long way to go when it comes to Indigenous people in our country.

Q: After the Freedom Ride members left, some people claimed that they made progress, but some people claimed that Freedom Ride raised discrimination on surface. A: Yes, I think, it did one of two things. It bring out discrimination issue to the for-front. It bring out I suppose around community within discrimination brought that to the for-front and it also took it on the ground as well. Discrimination has it is determined upfront I think if someone is being discriminated then it is going to be upfront but the other side is that hidden secret and pushed down under the ground. It does not pertain to be issue but it is an underlying effect on people who are discriminated and people who are discriminated against. It has had two sides, brought out discrimination to the for- 92

front and bring out back under the ground again. I think that is not just in Australia but worldwide as well. It depends how we address the issue. I think we still as a country address at the best possible way. We have reconciliation process et cetera but do people know what it really means? And I think from my perspective as an Aboriginal person, if we talking from the reconciliation perspective, we as a people should do it with ourselves before we actually start talking have the expectation across the abroad with indigenous and non-indigenous people. My disappointing thing is that majority people that drive reconciliation are Aboriginal people which I think should be reversed. When we talk about reconciliation as pertained to discrimination, I think people that are driving should be non-Indigenous people because if we really get to the crutch to what discrimination is about. I think that people that have that within I suppose countries that drive that for a long time, needs to come and reverse to non-Indigenous people. And I think today is that Aboriginal people want to drive it with all the best intentions from people participating in reconciliation. Discrimination as I said has many different facades. It is just not about bias against different color. It can be how we live, how culture can be based on a lot of different facades. When you break discrimination down, it has many areas. It impacts on sadly people of Indigenous cultures.

Q: Has situation of health, education and housing progressed since Freedom Ride? A: As I said before, we made a progress but we still have a lot way to go. We have come a long way but I still think we are not three-quarters way there. Yes, we made gains in particular areas but we also started in a country where health of Aboriginal Australians are of deformations. That is concern considering we are living in a country that has financial wealth and wealth of health facilities and health programs that could assist and support Aboriginal health abroad, housing, current situation of people living abroad. We are hearing that they are closing the communities of Western Australia and then you do not have housing, infrastructure to be able to income from those communities. It is about health, wellbeing. For Aboriginal people, health encompasses itself wellbeing. And I do not think non-Indigenous Australia health practitioners understand what health means for us as Aboriginal people and I think as soon as we would understand what that we would be able to close the gap that as best we possibly can. Because at the moment, I do not think the gap is closing and Aboriginal health problem is getting bigger and government have invested money in closing the gap between in health and wellbeing. We are still deciding in

declining race in that particular issue, social issues that encompasses families and I think we have programs from government to understand what it means. I do not know what were the main issues. If I come back to Freedom Ride and how far we have come and not come, and addressing those issues other than another venues because I think from Charles and students were addressing these issues and I do not think we still understand what education means Aboriginal people. We are still at a low rate for education numbers in this country, we still have the lowest education progress in this country. Education, from my perspective and I think from other Aboriginal people as well, education is the way how to progress as Aboriginal people. We are struggling in that areas. There are number of social issues that are still there and need lot of work, government have tried in progress. Some measurements worked, but some have not. Politically, we might go back and revisited issues that were there and how far we have come as with progressing and learn from the past rather than creating future without looking at the past.

Q: How can Aboriginal activism can be performed now and in the future? A: Aboriginal activism at that time versus what is today has changed and involved as time has gone on. Activism has many facades, having an issues and going out and I suppose create the way to push that politically, marches, people go out, from politically make change, policies within government and doing in a way the activism. We are trying to progress in Australia as Aboriginal people. Best tool for activism is education. More you understand, more you are able to challenge. More you are able to challenge, more you are able to make change. I think the think about changes, once the change is made then hard work really start to make sure to maintain the changes we made. We have to as Aboriginal people to put for-front in these areas and push ourselves in relationships in a way that is appropriate to get results. Or actually has someone to listen to and understand what we think as Aboriginal people what has changed and has to be changed because that will be the key. Because we can make all the change in the world but unless it is sustainable, what it is about?

Q: It is needed to learn from the past, what it means? A: Constantly revisited the journey of the 1965 Freedom Ride, what they were fighting for, and obviously see how far we come and how far we need to go and forged those grounds and if we have not come as far as we need to, for instance with Aboriginal health, and look at those and asks the question why we had not come, why we have not close the gap, how do we forge ourselves to change so that Aboriginal people

are healthier, happier for life. That we live longer, that mortality of our children is not higher as it needs to be, that we have same right and responsibilities and access to Australian services and education so we can progress ourselves in our point of view.

Christopher Binge: My father was part of Freedom Ride. He was actually one of the students that was in a photo with Charles Perkins that got allowed to the pool. So I am descendent of a person that was involved in Freedom Ride and forged the way to continue into those baths. Me and my dad was one of the first kids that went through those gates and swim in that pool so for me the 1965 Freedom Ride has significant event that impact on my life and my father was luckily one of those kids that set on Charles Perkins left or right hand-side money, walked through those gates and swimming that pool. So for me it is significant event, it means more than just issues going on, but personal connection because of my father who was one of the kids. It is proud and honoring that I can look back at time in history of Australia and said that my father was involved in the 1965 Freedom Ride, was not allowed to swim in the pool and that actually these guys came in and fought for those rights for that to happen and from that point forward he did won to swim in that pool and one of the opportunities as well though. And I still do it today and my kids have done it. So it is a bit tradition we are luckily to sit back and said that our fathers and our for- fathers fought for rights for us as Aboriginal people we have access to facilities and involved in communities we are in now.

Q: So in Moree there have been some progress. A: Yes, but we still have mission or reserves, widespread of communities and Aboriginal people in town working in non- and governmental positions and land, we forged to long way fifty years ago and look on the progress since the 1965 Freedom Ride and the progress it created today in our communities. But there are still underlying issues in communities. You, as an individual, trying to continue to push those boundaries every week, I think we are still forged in those battles and we are still in working process on fighting for the 1965 Freedom Ride that has done fifty years ago. I think the 1965 Freedom Ride for us happens every week, like in our town at Moree and we will keep continue fight that fight and keep heads up and gains if not for ourselves and if not for communities.

Q: Have you met Charles Perkins? A: Yes, two three times. That was through personal contact, my work. Everywhere you go, every document, you pick up, has some context to Charles and his legacy will, I think, never be forgotten and will forged us as Aboriginal people to continue fight 95

the fight that Charles fought and throughout his life. As I said the 1965 Freedom Ride is only one of the aspect of changes, and boundaries he forged in many years in his working and his personal life will, I believe, hold this country and stand living fort and particularly for us as Aboriginal people. If we can learn from the past and take the lessons he left, that is the way we can forged.